Judge Rejects Crypto Consolidation, Keeps 3 Separate Cases Across Districts

JUDGE SLAMS BRAKES ON CRYPTO MULTI-DISTRICT SWEEP

A federal panel just refused to bundle three separate crypto-related lawsuits into one Illinois mega-case. The decision keeps litigation fragmented across three districts and signals that judges are still wary of letting plaintiffs force broad, precedent-setting rulings through procedural shortcuts.

Anthony Motto filed suit in Chicago alleging that digital-asset platforms violated securities laws. Rather than let that single case play out, he asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to yank two similar actions—one in Los Angeles and one in Philadelphia—into the same courtroom. The panel, led by Sarah Vance, turned him down. Judges noted the cases involve different defendants, different tokens, and different legal theories, so forcing them together would create more confusion than clarity.

The ruling leaves each case on its home turf. Plaintiffs in California keep their Ninth-Circuit-friendly venue; the Pennsylvania action stays in the Third Circuit. Without centralization, discovery stays narrow, settlement pressure stays low, and each court can reach its own conclusion on whether the tokens at issue are securities. That matters because the SEC has argued that nearly all digital assets are securities; scattered rulings could blunt or bolster that claim depending on geography.

In plain terms, the panel decided that convenience for one plaintiff does not outweigh the risk of a messy, precedent-heavy mega-case. The outcome keeps regulatory uncertainty alive: platforms cannot yet point to a single nationwide decision that either shields or dooms their products.

For traders and exchanges, the message is mixed. Fragmented litigation means compliance teams must monitor three dockets instead of one, raising legal spend. At the same time, the absence of an Illinois-led super-case reduces the chance of a sweeping adverse ruling that could trigger immediate enforcement waves or force sudden delistings. Expect defense counsel to lean on this order when future plaintiffs try the same bundling tactic.

Decentralization just bought itself another day in court—literally.