Jump to content
brjXRP17

Ripple Lawsuit Tracker (October 2018 Update)

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, brjXRP17 said:

That case was moved from state court to federal court. Ryan Coffey lost a Motion to Remand, for he was trying to move that case back to state court. Ultimately, the case was dropped once Ryan Coffey realized that they were staying in federal court.

Why does the case being in federal court make such a difference that Ryan Coffey dropped the case? I am not familiar with US law and don't really know the difference between a state case and a federal one (except that there are lots of states and only one federal jurisdiction).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy win for Ripple

1- all Cryptos pumped, had nothing to do with Ripples effort

2- all Cryptos crashed

3- If Ripple goes bankrupt, XRP will exist

4- XRP is a decentralized cryotoasset, has never been a share of Ripple company.

Edited by AlibabaGrp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EasterBunny said:

Will never happen. The larger you become, the more you are targeted by lawsuits. 

@brjXRP17 Do you have a tally of the results? win/dismissed/settled/lost?

 

Yeah, agreed, but I was mainly concerned with this early stage for cryptos, when a losing lawsuit can damage Ripple sufficiently to interfere significantly with its plans and path of development, like a court designating XRP a security and crashing ripple's price and current activity 'overnight'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this update on the Greenwald case, would be nice if someone with US law expertise explained what it all means exactly. :)

Quote

 

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case captioned AVNER GREENWALD, Plaintiff, v. RIPPLE LABS, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-04790-PJH. (N.D. Cal.).

This is a putative securities class action brought by plaintiff Greenwald against defendants Ripple Labs, Inc. (Ripple), XRP II, LLC, a subsidiary of Ripple and various individual defendants. In summary, plaintiff alleges that Ripple created a digital currency called XRP and from 2013 to the present, defendants and their affiliates have been engaged in an ongoing scheme to sell XRP to the general public. Plaintiff Greenwald, a resident of Israel, alleges that he bought and sold XRP in both USD and Bitcoin and suffered losses on those investments as a result of the defendants' scheme

Pursuant to CAFA, a defendant may remove an action under Section 1453 if the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, the putative class has more than 100 members, and the parties are minimally diverse.

First, defendants argue that Luther only addressed removal based on CAFA's minimal diversity jurisdiction, whereas the present action was removed based on CAFA's alienage jurisdiction because plaintiff Greenwald is a citizen of Israel. Neither Luther nor CAFA supports that distinction. Nothing in Luthersuggests that the decision hinged on removal being premised on minimal diversity jurisdiction, rather than alienage jurisdiction.

Second, defendants' alienage jurisdiction-related policy arguments also do not move the needle. As an initial matter, those arguments do not override Luther. Moreover, Congress has already made clear that removal bars trump the policy considerations unique to alienage jurisdiction. Section 1332(a)(2) gives district courts original jurisdiction over actions between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.

Third, defendants reliance on this court's decision in Coffey is misplaced. In Coffey, plaintiff's state law claims satisfied the removal requirements of Section 1453. Coffey, 2018 WL 3812076, at *2. That allowed the entire action, including the Securities Act claims, to be removed.

Fourth, defendants argue that CAFA's plain language allows removal despite Section 22(a), and that Luther was wrongly decided and should be limited or reconsidered. Regardless of what defendants think CAFA's plain language allows, Luther held that Section 22(a) bars removal of pure Securities Act claims. And while defendants are free to argue to the Ninth Circuit that Lutherwas wrongly decided, those arguments fail to persuade this court

Accordingly, the court grants the plaintiff's motion and remands the action to San Mateo County Superior Court. A full-text copy of the District Court's October 15, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybb3h9pf from Leagle.com.

Avner Greenwald, Plaintiff, represented by John T. Jasnoch -- jjasnoch@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP & Thomas L. Laughlin, IV -- tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro hac vice.

Ripple Labs, Inc., XRP II, LLC, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ron Will, Antoinette O'Gorman, Eric van Miltenburg, Susan Athey, Zoe Cruz, Ken Kurson, Ben Lawsky, Anja Manuel & Takashi Okita, Defendants, represented by John M. Neukom -- john.neukom@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Virginia Faye Milstead -- virginia.milstead@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Peter Bradley Morrison -- pmorriso@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Remanded means the Federal Court sent it back down to the State Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...