California court denied remand application against Ripple that has been accusing Ripple of using dishonest and illegal tactics to manipulate the price of XRP. As the lawsuit against Ripple dismissed, the plaintiff has accused the CEO of Ripple, Brad Garlinghouse, of misleading investors’ community.
13 August, AtoZ Markets – In the latest news, an XRP investor’s case against Ripple has been dismissed. The case has been alleging that Ripple used dishonest and illegal tactics to manipulate the price of XRP, its native token.
XRP Investor’s Lawsuit against Ripple dismissed
The US Northern District of California court has denied a remand application for a lawsuit that has been filed against Ripple Labs Inc. The court has issued an “Order Denying Motion to Remand.” The case has been originally filed by the XRP investor in San Francisco, Ryan Coffey, earlier this May. His application for a remand has been essentially an attempt to keep the case in the lower courts of California rather than move the case to the Federal Courts.
Mr. Coffey has stated that he has suffered financial losses from investing in XRP. The lawsuit has been based on the allegation that Ripple has manipulated XRP value via the constant issuance of media promotion of the cryptocurrency.
In addition, the plaintiff has accused the CEO of Ripple, Brad Garlinghouse, of misleading investors’ community via his explanation of how Ripple products and XRP are used to “Market and increase the value of XRP.” Mr. Coffey has stated that Ripple and XRP products are not actually decentralized. He asserts that Ripple might have violated federal securities laws via the sale of XRP tokens.
The court has issued the statement, noting the following:
“ [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 non-removable federal claims, the provision should be given the full effect.”
Moreover, the court has ruled in favor of the defendants, stating:
“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.”
Think we missed something? Let us know in the comments section below.