Connect with us


Lawsuit against Ripple denied: Light at the end of the tunnel?

Anvita M V



Lawsuit against Ripple denied: Light at the end of the tunnel?
Source: Unsplash

On 10th August, a remand filed by plaintiff Ryan Coffey against defendants Ripple Labs, Inc. [Ripple], XRP II, LLC, an ancillary of Ripple, and Bradley Garlinghouse [CEO of Ripple] has been ruled over by the court.

Plaintiff initially filed the patent on May 3, 2018, accusing the aforementioned defendants after investing in XRP.

The lawsuit demanded remuneration for the plaintiff, awarding him for damages caused due to investing in XRP. It also demanded that XRP be subject to the California Corporations Code.

The lawsuit also alleged that Ripple Labs has “focused on how to create, maintain, and increase the value of XRP.” It also claimed that Ripple is not decentralized.

Allegations said that Ripple Inc. controls the value of XRP by “continuously touting it in the press and obscuring the role of the security.”, stating that they attempted to seek attention through extensive marketing.

Other reasons mentioned in the lawsuit include the statement of Ripple’s CEO Brad Garlinghouse on various platforms speaking about Ripple’s products and XRP, utilizing the XRP Ledger, quoting these as “efforts to market and increase the value of XRP”.

On, 1st June, the defendants were able to remove the action according to the Class Action Fairness Act. However, on 1st August, the plaintiff filed for a remand. James Taylor-Copeland represented the plaintiff as counsel whereas the defendants appeared through their counsel Peter Morrison.

After observing several factors, 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 of law has ruled in favor of the defendants. The order read:

“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,”

A lot of commotion has stirred up on Twitter after the order was passed.

Dr. RedsoXRP, a Twitter user tweeted:

“Looks like we are staying in federal court “

FLY on da WALL, another Twitterati said:

“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.”

Subscribe to AMBCrypto’s Newsletter

Follow us on Telegram | Twitter | Facebook

Anvita Mysore Vadiraj is a full-time content writer at AMBCrypto. Her passion lies in writing and delivering apt information to users. Currently, she does not hold any form of cryptocurrencies.