In Re Ripple Labs Inc. Litigation, Case №18-cv-06753-PJH, N.D. Cal, “Motion to Dismiss”, 9/19/2019 [SDP]
The Ripple class action continues to poodle forward. The most recent development is a Motion to Dismiss filed on September 19 by the Defendants.
The procedural history to this case is already labyrinthine and involves multiple lawsuits combined into one and several trips back and forth between state and federal court, where this case now resides after an attempt to “remand” it was denied earlier this year and a “Consolidated Class Action Complaint” (“Complaint”) was filed on August 5, 2019. The Complaint caught some news attention and some people made A Really Big Deal about it because it cited the SEC’s Digital Asset Framework, though some commentators (waves) didn’t think it mattered all that much.
So, anyhow, lawsuits in federal court are called “Complaints” and after one of these bad boys gets filed a defendant has a couple of options, one of which is to file a Motion to Dismiss, which is exactly what happened here and is not much of a surprise tactically.
The particular type of Motion filed here is a 12(b)(6) motion for “failure to state a claim.” This means, with apologies to my civ pro professor, the allegations in the lawsuit can’t possibly give rise to any legal liability on behalf of the defendants. That’s the gist. So if I sued Nelson because I didn’t like the way I eat herring he would file a 12(b)(6) motion because, well, my lawsuit is total rubbish and doesn’t state a legal claim.
Here, Ripple and its CEO Brad Garlinghouse (“the Defendants”) argue in their motion that the lawsuit doesn’t state a claim for a couple of reasons.