Jump to content

Ripple Wins First Salvo in California-Based Court Case


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, benstr said:

I wonder how much the lawyer is billing Ryan Coffey. Won't be long before lawyer's fees doubles Ryan $-551 losses. 

well.... I have a feeling that is not an issue.... was it really ever about the money...? From what I understand, there are several btc donations on the sidelines ready to send over at the drop of a hat... might take awhile to settle (the btc moving).... lol!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, XRPisthefuture said:

round 1 to ripple.  Let's see what round 2 looks like

Unfortunately, the state court's ruling has nothing to do with the merits of the suit (not that there is any to it).  The state court simply dismissed the case because it is to be filed in federal court because there is a statute giving the federal court jurisdiction to hear the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Alluvial said:

Unfortunately, the state court's ruling has nothing to do with the merits of the suit (not that there is any to it).  The state court simply dismissed the case because it is to be filed in federal court because there is a statute giving the federal court jurisdiction to hear the case.

Thanks for the info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-federal-court-denies-motion-to-remand-against-ripple

The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California has ruled to deny a motion to remand against Ripple, its subsidiary XRP II, and Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse, according to an official document issued August 10.

The original lawsuit was first initiatedby XRP investor Ryan Coffey in a San Francisco court on May 3, 2018, claiming that he lost $551.89 while trading XRP tokens. The class action was filed by law firm Taylor-Copeland, alleging that Ripple sold XRP tokensin violation of both the U.S. the Securities Act and the California Corporations Code. The plaintiff 

also claimed that XRP is not genuinely decentralized.

According to court documents, the plaintiff failed to show whether the presence of a Securities Act issue was sufficient to bar the defendant from removing an action under the Class Action Fairness Act. In the ruling the court found that, “The parties candidly admit that their research failed to turn up any case directly addressing this question and the court’s own research fared no better.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Global changed the title to Ripple Wins First Salvo in California-Based Court Case

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.