How Federal Courts Will Rule on a Ripple Lawsuit from Cali
On August 10, the Northern California US District Court ordered a Denying Motion to Remand a case involving Ryan Coffey VS Ripple Labs and Brad Garlinghouse. Coffey had initially filed the lawsuit against the company in the SF Superior Court on the 3rd of May. He then submitted the remand plea on August 1 to continue the ruling within California.
A motion to remand is often filed when a defendant believes that evidence displayed within the court by the prosecutor was not rightfully displayed or a biased factor was present on behalf of the prosecutor. This is often filed when attempting to “restart” a court case. Despite being filed, the court did reject the motion.
As reported within the submission, the court has decided to side with Ripple and Garlinghouse, stating that the court has thoroughly inspected the filed documents and taken their time in reviewing each argument and as the court has decided, the plaintiff has been rejected in regards to his filed motion.
Many of those that have been part of the case or keeping up with it believed that Coffey was aiming at keeping the court within California instead of under federal court ruling. If Ripple does manage to win the court case, this will instantly and automatically set a new law and other similar cases under the same accusations will be dealt with accordingly. Additionally, federal courts may bring together all the lawsuits similar to the current one in the documents against the company and its unauthorized distribution of assets deemed as securities.
As of now, two cases involving Ripple are under federal courts. Both of them resemble each other as accusations by both defendants on each case are aimed at Ripple and Garlinghouse and accusations of violating the law of securities and issuing them without legal authorization or registration.