Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Zakinov v. Ripple Labs, Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

February 26, 2020, Decided; February 26, 2020, Filed

Case No. 18-cv-06753-PJH

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 70

Defendant Ripple Labs, Inc.'s ("defendant Ripple"), defendant XRP II, LLC's ("defendant XRP II"), and defendant Ripple's Chief Executive Officer, Bradley Garlinghouse ("defendant Garlinghouse") (collectively, "defendants") motion to dismiss plaintiff Vladi Zakinov's ("plaintiff") consolidated class action complaint came on for hearing before this court on January 15, 2020. Plaintiff appeared through his counsel, James Taylor-Copeland and Oleg Elkhunovhich. Defendants appeared through their counsel, Damien Marshall, [*3]  Kathleen Hartnett, and Menno Goedman. 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 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART defendants' motion for the following reasons.

BACKGROUND

This consolidated putative class action ("In re Ripple") arises out of the creation, dispersal, circulation, and sale of "XRP," a sort of digital units often referred to as a "cryptocurrency." In re Ripple comprises various actions alleging both violations of federal and California state securities laws. Such actions include Coffey v. Ripple et al., 18-3286, Greenwald v. Ripple et al., 18-4790, Zakinov v. Ripple et al., 18-CIV-2845 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Mateo Cty.), and Oconer v. Ripple Labs, Inc., 18-CIV-3332 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Mateo Cty.). The procedural posture of this action is complex and its restatement here is largely unnecessary. The court need note only that this action is the only ongoing matter of those referenced above. For more information, the court directs readers to its February 28, 2019 order denying remand. Dkt. 33.

On August 5, 2019, plaintiff filed the operative consolidated complaint [*4]  against defendants. In it, plaintiff alleges the following claims:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32982 *; 2020 WL 922815

VLADI ZAKINOV, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RIPPLE LABS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Prior History: Zakinov v. Ripple Labs, Inc., 369 F. Supp. 3d 950, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32495 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2019)

CORE TERMS

defendants', alleges, statute of repose, misstatements, offering, sales, issuer transaction, bona fide, purchases, violator, privity, qualify, federal securities, court concludes, billion, public offering, settlement, exchanges, currency, plaintiff's claim, transactions, unregistered, parties, fails, sale of securities, motion to dismiss, three year, cryptocurrency, first-offered, last-offered