Plaintiff originally filed the lawsuit on May 3, 2018, charging the aforesaid defendants after investing in XRP cryptocurrency.
The lawsuit requested compensation for the plaintiff, granting him for losses caused due to investing in XRP.
In addition, the lawsuit also requested XRP be subject to the California Corporations Code. The petitioner also alleged that Ripple Labs has “focused on how to create, maintain, and increase the value of XRP.”
Furthermore, the lawsuit claimed that Ripple is not adequately decentralized. The legal filing pointed out that Ripple Inc. manipulates the value of XRP by “continuously touting it in the press and obscuring the role of the security,” and claims it as an extensive marketing tactics.
The lawsuit also highlighted the statement of Ripple’s CEO Brad Garlinghouse on several media platforms about Ripple’s XRP token and product offerings. These were presented to prove that the CEO made strenuous “efforts to market and increase the value of XRP.”
However, Ripple was able to clear away the action in accordance with the Class Action Fariness Act on June 1. Furthermore, on August 1, Ripple filed a remand petition. The plaintiff was represented by James Taylor-Copeland whereas the defendants were represented by Peter Morrison.
After a detailed hearing, 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 also issued a ruling in favor of the defendants. The order read as follows:
“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.”