A motion of plaintiffs in a collective lawsuit against Ripple Labs to keep the case in the California courts was denied this week by a judge.
The case will pass to the federal court.
Lawyers for plaintiff Ryan Coffey filed suit against Ripple in May claiming that the company was engaged in an "ICO without end" (initial offer of coins) when it issued 100 billion XRP tokens, distributing 67.51 billion those tokens "to the general public and the wholesale to the largest investors" And has retained 32.49 billion tokens for the founders.
Ripple claims to have sold digital XRP tokens to pay for the development of a network of interbank transactions that has been developed.
The plaintiffs argue that the mass issuance of tokens and pre-distribution to the founders means that the Ripple token sale closely resembles the sale of an unregistered stock.
Plaintiff is looking for "… rescission of all purchases, damages and accountability on the proceeds of the alleged sales of the accused of XRP, "wrote Judge Phyllis J Hamilton, in the background of the decision.
Although in his decision to allow the last cause to proceed to the federal court, Judge Hamilton acknowledged, "the defendant always has the burden of establishing that the removal (to the federal court) is" also found that:
"… (A) the defendant can remove an action below … if the amount in dispute exceeds $ 5 million, the putative class has more than 100 members and the parts are minimally different. " A so-called" removal bar "that prevents moving class-share shares to a federal court if a company sold securities" in a national stock exchange ", did not also apply to Ripple, the judge wrote. XRP tokens are typically sold on cryptocurrency exchanges.
Ultimately, the prediction of "jurisdictional diversity" proved to be a valid argument for Ripple. The judge wrote, "the removal in this situation agrees with the overall intent of the Congress … to strongly favor the exercise of the jurisdiction of federal diversity with respect to the actions of class with interstate ramifications. "According to the Cornell Law School Information Institute," jurisdiction on diversity "refers to" The power of a federal court of the amount in dispute exceeds $ 75,000 and no actor shares a state of citizenship with any defendant. "Attorney Max Kennerly wrote in a blog post that defendants in classic actions often try to be tried in federal courts because:
- "Federal juries, by virtue of their wider geographical range, include less urban jurors and more rural jurors, and therefore (according to the tradition of lawyers) will award lower verdicts" [1 9659017] "the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set limits on the amount of discovery available"
- "the federal courts are … more inclined to grant the motions to reject (and the motions for a summary judgment) than the state courts "
" Discovery "refers to" an exchange of legal information so that all parties can discover and know the facts of the case. "