Flashback – The class-action lawsuit case against Ripple has been presented before the court in May 2018 that claimed ‘XRP is not a token but a security’. To remind, it was filed by law firm Taylor-Copeland( plaintiffs) and defended being payment startup, Ripple, its subsidiary XRP II and individual CEO Brad Garlinghouse on the matter that Ripple’s sale of native XRP token violates the US securities laws.
However, the case is been before the court since that time and the recent post of a US lawyer Jake Chervinsky states that ‘Ripple scores a minor but meaning victory for Ripple’. This is because, on Thursday, i.e Feb 28, 2019, the class action lawsuit against Ripple at the U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton from Northern District of California heard that the case would remain in the federal court itself – which is a minor victory for Ripple, as per the lawyer Jake Chervinsky. Nevertheless, the case paper is disclosed via the recent post of Jake, posted on March 01, 2019 on Twitter;
Ripple securities class action update: The Court has denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand. This means the case stays in federal court, a minor but meaningful victory for Ripple.
The plaintiffs will file an Amended Consolidated Complaint by March 30.https://t.co/4gdQVaCrlM
— Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) March 1, 2019
Since the period of case filing, (indeed since November), the court had undergone various changes – however, the latest hearing resulted that the case against Ripple will remain in the federal court itself. If in case, shifted back to lower courts – corporate defendants may not likely comfortable. Consequently, as the report reveals judges in lower courts are locally selected thus more sympathetic to plaintiffs than defendants (Ripple, its subsidiary and CEO Brad).
The document added the court’s previous note;
“[b]ecause interstate class actions typically involve more people, more money, and more interstate commerce ramifications than any other type of lawsuit, the Committee firmly believes that such cases properly belong in federal court.”
As Chervisky noted ‘Ripple fought hard’ to keep the filing in federal court level. Moreover, per the document, its worth to note that both the parties have 14 days to meet and finalize the proceeding as to whether the litigation should proceed – and in addition before 30 days of the order, the filing party or plaintiffs is expected to file ‘an amended consolidated complaint’ while defendant also got 30 days to files a ‘motion to dismiss’ – or in case if Ripple doesn’t intend to do so, it is expected that Ripple should notify the court.
So readers, what’s your view on the next move of the parties? Do you think they’ll meet, determine and end the case here? Let us know what do you think.