Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Javim777

Ripple denied: Light at the end of the tunnel?

Recommended Posts

Like the OP said, If Ripple can win this at the federal level, other lawsuits in the future are screwed. If Ripple is declared a non-security (if that’s a word), that’s almost certainly all she wrote.

 Ripple has a much better chance of winning at the federal level, in my opinion. Ripple’s counsel are ex-SEC bigwigs. If the lawsuit had stayed where it was....well, California has a reputation of protecting the consumer.

Also, by the time the time the trial starts, XRP may have been declared not a security- which makes it extremely hard (but not impossible) for the plaintiffs to win. I don’t want to start up that argument again, but I believe  the fact is, if the SEC was going to declare XRP a security, they would’ve done it already. 

 

Edited by Deeznutz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are misunderstanding what this most recent development means.  All they are deciding right now is which court (i.e., federal or state) should hear the California (CA) case.

Also, the US court system is quite complex.  There are dozens of district (federal) courts (link and map below), and one court's ruling does not set precedent for the entire country.  The only court that has that amount of influence is the Supreme Court.

Currently, all the security lawsuits have been filed in the state of CA.  However, it is possible future lawsuits could be filed in other states which would be handled by a different court.  And there could be differing opinions.  For example, a court in CA could conclude XRP is not a security but a court in Ohio (OH) could conclude XRP is a security.  In this scenario, both the plaintiffs and defendants would likely appeal but they are in different districts (the 9th and 6th, respectively).  As a result, different courts would potentially hear the appeal.  It is also not uncommon for appellate courts to decline an appeal in which case the lower court's decision stands.  Or the appellate courts could reach two different conclusions in which case Congress or the Supreme Court would potentially have to resolve the difference.

Depending on how many lawsuits are filed, number of courts involved, decisions of plaintiffs/defendants to appeal, whether the cases are settled before trial, etc., the security issue may not be resolved for several years.  Courts also try to to be efficient so in the event of lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, they could be consolidated into a MDL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidistrict_litigation).

I am not a lawyer, but I am somewhat familiar with the US legal system.  For those who are lawyers in the US, feel free to correct me if my line of thought is incorrect.

If you have not already, I would highly recommend checking out @brjXRP17's posts.  Links are below.

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/federal-courts-public/court-website-links

circuit_map_in_agency_palette-full-size.png.9bccde6b65ea208549e951b3fbd90646.png

 

 

 

Edited by Sebastian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Deeznutz said:

if the SEC was going to declare XRP a security, they would’ve done it already. 

or wait till its not

they did say certain ones can start as a security but evolve into a non-security

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cointrust.com/news/court-denies-compensation-seeking-lawsuit-against-ripple

After a detailed hearing, the court said

“[W]hen an anti-removal provision such as Section 22(a) is invoked, the threshold question is whether removal is being effectuated by way of the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), or by way of a separate removal provision that “grants additional removal jurisdiction in a class of cases which would not otherwise be removable under the prior grant of authority.” If removal is being effectuated through a provision[, like § 1453,] that confers additional removal jurisdiction, and that provision contains no exception for nonremovable federal claims, the provision should be given full effect.”

The court also issued a ruling in favor of the defendants. The order read as follows:

“Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sharkey said:

What exactly does this even mean, if anything, relevant to the actual lawsuit(s)?

 

Officially it means very little. But practically makes it more likely for Ripple's relationship building to pay off in it's favor.

 

Also OP title is way off, lawsuit is not won. The lawsuit as most here understand it hasn't even started.

Edited by Konan45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Konan45 said:

Also OP title is way off, lawsuit is not won. The lawsuit as most here understand it hasn't even started.

Sincerally, somebody has changed my original titel. It was not me. I copied and pasted the articles title when I started this topic. Weird...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2018 at 5:21 PM, Javim777 said:

ambcrypto.com/lawsuit-against-ripple-denied-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

“Ripple wanted this in federal court and the plaintiff wanted it to stay in California. Ripples attorneys know what they are doing. If Ripple wins in federal court than this becomes federal law. This is a big advantage for Ripples side.”

Title of the OP is misleading and has nothing to do with (current) reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nicktemple said:

https://www.cointrust.com/news/court-denies-compensation-seeking-lawsuit-against-ripple

The court also issued a ruling in favor of the defendants. The order read as follows:

“Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion.”

For anyone reading (since I was confused initially), this ruling above denied Ryan "McDumbass" Coffey's attempt to keep the case in California. The case itself wasn't thrown out. It'll be moved to Federal "pound me in the ass" court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2018 at 4:26 PM, Deeznutz said:

f the SEC was going to declare XRP a security, they would’ve done it already

If not they’re continuing to let people buy an unlicensed security by not saying anything and they’re gonna get sued if they eventually do.

IE they won’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×