Plaintiff Trenton Smith brought claims against Defendant Nelk, Inc. doing business as Nelk or Full Send, Defendant Nelk USA, Inc., Defendant Metacard LLC, Defendant Kyle Forgeard (“Kyle”), and Defendant John Shahidi (“John”) (collectively, “Defendants”) related to Plaintiff’s Metacard purchases.
Smith alleged that Defendants made promises regarding the benefits of owning a the Metacard NFT (“Metacard”) that Defendants had no intention of delivering. These benefits were included both long-term investment value and ongoing “perks.”
The ongoing perks described by Defendants included gym memberships, exclusive events and first access to new projects launched by Defendants. Defendants made these promises to induce individuals, particularly Defendants’ fan base, to purchase the Metacard, all while knowing they would not fulfill those promises and fully intending to enrich themselves. Plaintiff and the Class Members relied on Defendants’ representations in purchasing the Metacard, earning Defendants approximately $23 million in initial sales plus another approximately $4.3 million in royalties on re-sales.
Defendants filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Jeremy Clark pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Computer Science Expert Witness
Jeremy Clark is an associate professor at the Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. From 2019 to 2025, Clark held the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada/Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton/Catallaxy Industrial Research Chair in Blockchain Technologies.
Clark holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Waterloo, awarded in 2011, and he is a professional engineer with the Professional Engineers of Ontario. He has a decade of research expertise in digital assets (e.g., Bitcoin and Ethereum), blockchain, and related areas of cryptography, and 20 peer-reviewed papers on Bitcoin, Ethereum, digital assets, and blockchain technology.
Clark has also testified on digital assets to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and Economy of the Senate of Canada, and to the Standing Committee on Finance of the House of Commons of Canada. Additionally, Clark has given over 50 presentations on digital assets to companies, government agencies, law enforcement, pension plans, and academic groups.
Discussion by the Court
Defendants argued (1) that Clark failed to articulate a reliable methodology, and (2) that he is unqualified.
First, the parties dispute whether Clark’s methodology is vague and underdeveloped. The Court found that Clark’s testimony was the product of sufficiently reliable principles because he explained the Mint process, how the Metacards were created and assigned to the original owners, and the unique addresses that purchased the Metacards.
Clark began his review of the blockchain activity associated with the Metacard by examining “archives of websites affiliated with the NFT with the Internet Archive.” Clark relied on datasets curated and offered through the Dune Analytics tool, finding data about Metacard’s minting activity.
According to Clark, “minting is the Ethereum-based activity of creating the new token ID and assigning it to the owner’s address,” and the “address of the entity that created the NFT collection [here] is 0x9E . . . C731” (the “Metacard treasury”).
And using this information, Clark can estimate the number of Metacard purchasers based on the number of unique Ethereum addresses that held a Metacard at some point, can trace the flow of funds between addresses related to these transactions, can separate out secondary sales following the Mint, and can trace royalties earned from Metacard transfers. For example, Clark described the transfer history of the Metacard treasury which deployed the NFT collection, the Ethereum flowing out of this address, and its eventual depletion.
Second, Defendants argued that Clark lacked the qualifications to opine on class-wide damages. However, the Court found that Clark had sufficient experience with digital assets to offer his opinions.
Held
The Court denied Defendants’ motion to exclude the opinions of Jeremy Clark.
Key Takeaway
Clark’s explanation of the steps in his methodology, breakdown of his analysis, and description of the data he relies on provided sufficient assurance to the Court in its gatekeeping capacity that exclusion is not necessary on the basis of unreliable methods.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Trenton Smith V. John Shahidi |
| Docket Number: | 8:25cv161 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Central District of California |
| Order Date: | March 09, 2026 |
Leave a Reply