Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/387812794/Greenwald-v-Ripple-8-8-18-Removal-to-Fed-Crt
Timestamp: 2019-02-16 21:48:14
Document Index: 301760960

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1446', '§ 77', '§ 77', '§ 1332', '§ 1441', '§ 1446', '§ 1453', '§ 12', '§ 107', '§ 1332', '§ 1446', '§ 1446', '§ 1453', '§ 1332', '§ 1332', '§ 1332', '§ 1332', '§ 77', '§ 1453', '§ 77', '§ 102', '§ 1332', '§ 1332', '§ 1453', '§ 1453', 'art\n25', '§ 107', '§ 144', '§ 1441', '§ 1453', '§ 1452', '§ 12', '§ 1446', '§ 1446', 'ARTZ 3753', '§5', '§77', '§10', '§77', '§5', '§77', '§77', '§77', '§77', '§395', '§5', '§ 77', '§77', '§ 230', '§ 77', '§12', '§12', '§77', '§77', '§ 412']

Greenwald v Ripple 8/8/18 Removal to Fed Crt | Diversity Jurisdiction | Class Action
Ripple moved the Greenwald case to federal court.
Electromation of Delaware County Inc v. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust - Document No. 9
Res. TC Seace 1490-2011 Carta Fianza de Consorcio
Fire Ord Old-New Comparison
Introduccion a Las Practicas 2015-2
MORRISON (SBN 230148)
peter.morrison@skadden.com .
VIRGINIA F. MILSTEAD (SBN 234578) '
virginia.milstead@skaddeneom
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 SAN MATEO COUNTY
\OOOQONUl-BMNI—l
JOHN NEUKOM (SBN 275887)
Ripple Labs Inc., XRP II, LLC, Bradley
Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ron Will,
Antoinette O’Gorman, Eric van Miltenburg,
Susan Athey, Zoe Cruz, Ken Kurson, Ben
Lawsky, Anja Manuel, and Takashi Okita
AVNER GREENWALD, Individually and on 3
CASE NO.: 18-CIV-03461
) NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY AND
Plaintiff, ) CLERK OF STATE COURT OF
) REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL
v. ) COURT
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
OOQONUI-BOJNHOWWQGNUI-BMNHG
RIPPLE LABS INC., et a1., 3
) f . ,
ligﬁfc'v‘034s1
#2133! Removal of E" ire
) case to
Federal co,
, //////
NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY AND STATE COURT OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
CASE NO. 18-CIV-03461
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-TITLED COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Defendants Ripple Labs
Inc., XRP II, LLC, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ron Will, Antoinette O’Gorman, Eric
van Miltenburé, Susan Athey, Zoe Cruz, Ken Kurson, Ben Lawsky, Anja Manuel, and Takashi
\OOOQO'xUI-RUJNH
Okita removed the above-captioned matter to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on August 8, 2018. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Removal ﬁled in
the federal court is appended hereto as Exhibit A.
oogcxu-AmNr-tcwooqaxm-tr-ac
CASE NO. 18-CIV—03461
Case‘3:18» 04790 Documentl Filed 08/08/1 Dagelof 14
PETER B. MORRISON (SBN 230148)
VIRGINIA F. MILSTEAD (SBN 234578)
\DOOQQUl-RMNH
Facsimile: (650) 470—4570
AVNER GREENWALD, Individually And On ) CASE NO.: 18—cv—4790
) NOTICE OF REMOVAL
ooqaxmti-scxoooqaxm-ti-tc
RIPPLE LABS INC., et_al., )
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case No. 18-cv-4790
Case 3:18 04790 Documentl Filed 08/08/1 ‘PageZof 14
INTRODUCTION ...... ...........................................................................................................
II. REMOVAL IS PROPER UNDER THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT ...................... 2
III. SECTION 22(A) OF THE SECURITIES ACT DOES NOT BAR REMOVAL ................... 3
\DOOQQUI-BDJNH
A. Luther Does Not Bar Removal Here ........................................................................... 4
B. Luther Has BeenlAbrogated By the Supreme Court ................................................... 6
C. Luther Should Be Reconsidered ................................................................................. 7
IV. THIS REMOVAL NOTICE IS TIMELY AND SATISFIES ALL
PREREQUISITES. ............................................................................................................... 10
OOQONUI-BDJNHOGOOQGNUIAMNHO
I A ‘
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case No. 18—cv—4790
Case 3:18 04790 Documentl Filed 08/08l1 Page30f 14
CASES PAGE§S)
Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., ,
856 F.3d 1274 (9th Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... ..... 2
California Public Employees Retirement System v. WorldCom, Inc.,
368 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................................. 9
\DOOQONUl-BDJNH
Cyan, Inc. V. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund,
138 S. Ct. 1061 (2018) .................................................................................................................... 4
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. V. Owens,
135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 6, 7
FDIC v. Countrywide Financial Corp.,
No. 11-CV—10400—MRP-MANX, 2012 WL 12897152 (CD. Cal. Mar. 20, 2012) ........................ 9
Holt v. Noble House Hotels & Resort, Ltd.,
No. 17CV2246-MMA (BLM), 2018 WL 539176 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) ................................. 3
Jordan V. Nationstar Mortgage LLC,
781 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................... 6, 7
Katz v. Gerardi, ‘
552 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2009) ........................................................ ’ .......................................... 7 , 8, 9
Life of the South Insurance Co. v. Carzell,
851 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................... 4
Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP,
533 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................... passim
ooqcxmtHckcooQOxUI-AUJNHc
Miller V. Gammie,
335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................... ‘............................................... 6
561 US. 247 (2010) ........................................................................................................................ 5
New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund v. HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2006—4,
581 F. Supp. 2d 581(S.D.N.Y. 2008) .................................................. 5, 7
Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi V. Morgan Stanley,
605 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (CD. Cal. 2009) .......................................................................................... 9
Rossetti v. Stearn’s Products. Inc.,
No. CV 16-1875-GW (SSx), 2016 WL 3277295 (CD. Cal. June 6,2016) ................................... 3
464 US. 16 (1983) .......................................................................................................................... 9
474 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1973) .......................................................................................................... 8
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case No. 18—cv-479O
Case 3:181 ‘
04790 DOCume‘nt 1 Filed “08/08/12:” Page 4 of 14
US. Industries, Inc. v. Gregg.
348 F. Supp. 1004 (D. Del. 1972), rev’d on other grounds, 540 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1976) ............. 8
United States v. Providence Journal Co., ,
485 US. 693 (1988) ............................................................................ 9
15 U.S.C. § 77p .......................................................................................... ........................ ............ 3, 4
\DOOQHONUIAOJN
15 U.S.C. § 77V ................................................................................................................................ 3, 4
28 U.S.C. § 1332 .......................................................................... passim
28 U.S.C. § 1441 ............................................................................................................................... 8, 9
28 U.S.C. § 1446 ................................................................................ 1,10
28 U.S.C. 4§ 1453 ......................................................................................... passim
2 McLaughlin on Class Actions § 12:6 (14th ed. 2017) ..................................................................... 9
'15 Moore’s F ederal\Practice — Civil 102.73 (2018) ........................................................................ 4
16 Moore’s Federal Practice— Civil § 107.91[1][b] (2018) ................ 7
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHl—IHH
ooaI-BMNr—cwooxlaxuu-BMNHO
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case No. 18—cv-4790
Case 3:18 04790 Documentl Filed 08/08/1 PageSof 14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Please take notice that Defendants Ripple Labs
Inc. (“Ripple”), XRP II, LLC (“XRP 11”), Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ron Will,
Antoinette O’Gorman, Eric van Miltenburg, Susan Athey, Zoe Cruz, Ken Kurson, Ben Lawsky,
Anja Manuel, and Takashi Okita (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their undersigned
attorneys, hereby remove the above-captioned civil action, and all claims and causes of action
\DOOQGNUI
therein, from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and
1453. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), all process, pleadings, and orders served on Defendants
10 in the action to date are attached hereto as Exhibit A. As the requisite “short and plain statement of
11 the grounds for removal,” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Defendants state as follows:
13 1. This action arises out of Plaintiff’s alleged purchase of a virtual currency, XRP, on
14 “global, online cryptocurrency exchanges” (Compl. 1m 14, 78-79.) Plaintiff does not allege that
15 he lacked information about the nature of these transactions. Nevertheless, Plaintiff claims that he
16 was somehow injured because Defendants were allegedly required to register XRP as a “security”
17 with the Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) but failed to do so.
18 2. On July 3, 2018, Plaintiff ﬁled a putative class action complaint in the Superior
19 Court of California, County of San Mateo, purporting to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of
20 “all persons or entities who purchased XRP from July .3, 2015 through the present.” (Compl. ii 87.)
21 Plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 5, 12(a)(1), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities
22 Act”). Plaintiff seeks, among other things, rescission of XRP purchases and/or damages (Compl. at
23 21(C)(D)) and a constructive trust over the proceeds of Defendants’ alleged sales of XRP (Compl.
24 at 21(G)).
25 3. Defendants now remove this putative class action to this Court pursuant to the Class
26 Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1453. The Court has jurisdiction over the claims
27 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case No. l8—cv-4790
Case 3:18l 04790 Documentl Filed 08/08/1 :Page60fl4
II. REMOVAL IS PROPER UNDER THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT
4. This alleged nationwide securities action falls within the original jurisdiction of this
Court under CAFA. Pursuant to CAFA, a putative class action may be removed to the appropriate
federal district court if (1) the action purports to be a “class” action brought on behalf of 100 or
more members; (2) any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any
\DOOQGNUl-RUJNH
defendant or any member of the class is a member of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen
of a state; and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. §e_e 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2),
(2)(A), (5)(B), 1453(b). This action meets each of those requirements.
5. Class exceeds 100 members. First, this is an alleged class action brought on behalf
of over 100 members. Plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of a "‘class” consisting of
“thousands of members.” (Compl. 1H 87, 89.) That well exceeds the requirements of CAFA. E
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B), (5)(B).
Minimal Diversity. Second, minimal diversity of citizenship exists (i.e., at least one
class member plaintiff has a different citizenship from any of the defendants), as required by
Section 1332(d)(2)(A). On the one hand, at least three of the Defendants are allegedly citizens of
California. (Compl. 1111
15-27.) On the other hand, there are members of the putative class who are
citizens of states other than California or citizens of foreign states, including Plaintiff, who is a
resident of Israel. (Compl. ii 14.) The Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of “all persons
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH ooqaxmhwwucxoeoqcxm-BMNHQ or entities who purchased XRP from July 3, 2015 through the present” without any geographic
limitation. (Compl. 1i 87.) The Complaint further alleges that Defendants have sold XRP to
putative class members on “global, online cryptocurrency exchanges,” which are accessible on the
internet and therefore throughout the United States and the world. (Compl. W 78-79.)
Additionally, the Complaint alleges that “[b]y way of the internet, including Ripple Labs’ website,
Twitter, and the over 50 cryptocurrency exchanges that trade XRP, interstate means are used in
connection with the offer and sale of XRP.” (Compl. 1] 77.) Given these allegations, citizens of
states other than California or citizens of foreign states, including Plaintiff himself, have
undoubtedly purchased XRP. Therefore, members of the putative class are citizens of states
different from Defendants. See, e.g., Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274, 1276 (9th
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case No. 18-cv—4790
Case'3:18 04790 Documentl Filed 08/08/1 Page7of 14
Cir. 2017) (concluding that minimal diversity was satisﬁed when class deﬁnition, as pleaded,
included a nationwide class and many non—citizens of California); Rossetti V. Stearn’s PrOds., Inc.,
2016 WL 3277295, at *1-2 (CD. Cal. June 6, 2016) (action pled as a nationwide class satisﬁed
minimal diversity requirement). .
\OOOQQUI-IRDJNH
7. Amount in Controversy. Third, this action meets CAFA’s amount-in—controversy
requirement of' $5 million. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6). Among other things, Plaintiff seeks the
rescission of Defendants’ alleged sales of XRP to putative class members. (Compl. at 21(C).)
Plaintiff alleges that in the ﬁrst quarter of 2018 alone, “Defendants sold at least $167.7 million
worth of XRP.” (Compl. ii 52.) If all such sales were rescinded, the amount in controversy would
exceed $5 million. While Defendants strongly deny that Plaintiff or any putative class members
are entitled to recover any amount (or any other relief), Plaintiff plainly seeks to recover an
aggregate amount over $5 million.
8. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks a constructive trust over the proceeds of Defendants’
of XRP. (Compl.
alleged sales
is at least $167.7
at 21(G).) Based on the allegations in the Complaint, this amount
million, in excess of the $5 million minimum. (Compl. ﬂ 52);
Noble House Hotels & Resort, Ltd., 2018 WL 539176, at :*4
w ﬂgﬂ
(SD. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) (considering
amount over which plaintiff was seeking a constructive trust and disgorgement in assessing amount
in controversy).
OOQQUIAUJNHOWOONONUI-RMNHO
9. Exceptions. None of the exceptions to removal set forth in CAFA applies to bar
removal here. This action does not (i) involve a “covered security,” as deﬁned by 15 U.S.C.
§ 77p(f)(3); (ii) relate to the internal affairs or governance of a corporation and arise under the laws
of the state in which such corporation was formed; or (iii) relate to the rights, duties, and
obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to any security. E 28 U.S.C. § 1453(d)(1)-(3).
‘III. SECTION 22(A) OF THE SECURITIES ACT DOES NOT BAR REMOVAL
1-0. The fact that Plaintiff purports to bring claims under the Securities Act does not
preclude removal here. Section 22(a) of the Securities Act (“Section 22(a)”) provides, “Except as
provided in section 77p(c) of this title, no case arising under this subchapter and brought in any
State court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States.” 15
NOTICE OF REMOVAL '
Case No. 18-cv-4790
Case 3:18‘ 04790 Document 1 Filed 08/08/1‘ Page 8 of 14
U.S.C. § 77v(a). Section 22(a) is known as a removal bar. Although the Supreme Court recently
concluded that the exception to the removal bar in section 77p(c)—a reference to the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”)—does not permit removal of class actions alleging
only Securities Act violations, Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, 138 S.
\DQOQGUl-BUJNl—t
Ct. 1061, 1075-76 (2018), the Supreme Court has not prohibited removal of class actions asserting
Securities Act claims on the basis of CAFA, which expressly permits removal.
A. Luther Does Not Bar Removal Here
11'. of the United
Defendants expressly acknowledge the decision States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031,
1034 (9th Cir. 2008). In gm, the plaintiff asserted claims under the Securities Act. EQ at
1032-33. The court held that a class action brought in state court alleging violations of the
Securities Act was not removable even though it met the requirements of CAFA. I_CL at 1034. But
ILher involved a removal based on minimum diversity between citizens of the United States. Q
1033-34. It did not address a situation where, as here, CAFA permitted removal based not only on
minimal diversity jurisdiction, but also on alienage jurisdiction because the Securities Act-class
action was brought by a citizen of a foreign state on behalf of a purportedly worldwide class of
persons who purchased an alleged security from “global, online cryptocurrency exchanges.”
(Compl. 1] 79.)
12. This distinction is substantively important. “[T]he major purpose of alienage
oeuam-RMtkoooqcl-AMNHO
jurisdiction is to promote international relations by assuring other countries that litigation involving
their nationals Will be treated at the national level.” Life of the S. Ins. Co. v. Carzell, 851 F.3d
1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (applying alienage provisions of CAFA); ﬂ
alﬂ 15 Moore’s Federal Practice — Civil § 102.73 (2018) (“Alienage jurisdiction was intended to
provide the federal courts with a form of protective jurisdiction over matters implicating
international relations, in which the national interest is paramount,” including when
“entanglements with other sovereigns that might ensue from failure to, treat the legal controversies
of aliens on a national 1evel.”).
13. CAFA (i) broadened the deﬁnition of diversity and alienage jurisdiction in 28
Case 3:18 04790 Document 1 Filed 08/08/1 Page 9 of 14
U.S.C. § 1332 as it applied to certain class actions, & 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d); and (ii) created a
separate statute allowing for removal of class actions falling within that broadened deﬁnition, E
28 U.S.C. § 1453. In doing so, CAFA speciﬁcally expanded the federal courts’ jurisdiction “by
establishing original jurisdiction in the federal courts for certain class actions that are national or
international in scope,” subject to certain enumerated exceptions. New Jersey Carpenters Vacation
\DOOQGNUl-BDJNr—d
Fund V. HarborView Mortg. Loan Trust, 581 F. Supp. 2d 581, 583 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
14. A case like this one that seeks to apply, for the ﬁrst time, US. securities laws to
transactions that take place throughout the globe has just such a national and international scope.
Among other things, it implicates international relations as other countries seek to regulate
transactions in virtual currencies that take place within their own borders. & HarborView, 581 F.
Supp. 2d at 588 (concluding that Securities Act case was removable under CAFA when it involved
matters that were affecting the “international economy”). While Defendants in no way concede
that the Securities Act applies to international transactions—it does not, ﬂ Morrison v. National
Australia Bank Ltd., 561 US. .247 (2010)—P1aintiff’s attempt to apply the Securities Act to such
transactions takes this case outside the purview of LLher.
15. Indeed, the basis for the ILther court’s holding that Section 22(a) bars removal
notwithstanding CAFA was that Section 22(a) is “narrow, precise, and specific” and “applies only
NNNNNNNNNHHl—ll—ll—ll—ll—IHHH
to claims arising under the Securities Act,” whereas CAFA has broader application. Lithg, 533
wanm-nmNr-tcxaooqmmAwNi-xc
F.3d at 1034. But if Section 22(a) were interpreted to bar removal of Securities Act claims even
when such claims purported to regulate transactions on an international scale, Section 22(a) would
not have the “narrow, precise, and speciﬁc” application the Luther court described. Therefore, the
reasoning in ILher does not apply to the situation here and does not bar removal.
‘16. Defendants recognize that, if the Court does not conclude that ILher is
distinguishable, the decision in ILther is binding precedent that appears to bar removal here.
However, Defendants further contend that (i) subsequent United States Supreme Court authority
has abrogated the conclusion and reasoning in Luther, and, if not, (ii) post-Luther developments in
the law counsel that the Ninth Circuit should reconsider Luther.
17. Defendants acknowledge that, to the extent the Court does not believe that Luther
Case 3:18-x_ 04790 Document 1 Filed 08/08/1 3age 10 of 14
has been abrogated, this Court may be bound by LLher and compelled to remand this action. In
N such circumstance, Defendants would request that the Ninth Circuit review such remand order so
M that it may reconsider LLher. CAFA itself provides for an appeal to the Ninth Circuit from any
remand decision under CAFA. E 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) (“[A] court of appeals may accept an
appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying a motion to remand a class action to the
State court from which it was removed if application is made to the court of appeals not more than
10 days after entry of the'order.”).
B. Luther Has Been Abrogated By the Supreme Court
NO~OO
18. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that its own decisions are not binding on district
courts if their “reasoning or theory” is “clearly irreconcilable” with subsequently decided United
States Supreme Court authority. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003). Such is the
case with Luther. In reaching its holding, Luther relied on the general rules that “removal statutes
HHHHHl—IH
are strictly construed against removal,” and “any doubt is resolved against removability.” LLher,
ONUIRMNHO
533 F.3d at 1034. However, in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547
(2014), decided after Litlﬂ, the Supreme Court declared that “no antiremoval presumption attends
cases invoking CAFA, which Congress enacted to facilitate adjudication of certain class actions in
’17 federal court.” Q at 554. On the contrary, CAFA’s “provisions should be read broadly, with a
18 strong preference that interstate class actions should be heard in a federal court if properly removed
19 by any defendant.” Q (citation omitted). Accordingly, ILher’s strict construction against
20 removal to resolve the perceived conﬂict between Section 22(a)’s removal bar and CAFA’s
21 removal provisions cannot be squared with the Supreme Court’s express instructions in the more
22 recently decided Dart Cherokee “to interpret CAFA’s provisions under section 1332 broadly in
23 favor of removal.” Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, .781 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2015)
24 (reversing order of district court, “[i]n light of the Supreme Court’s clear statement in Dart
25 Cherokee that Congress intended for no antiremoval presumption to attend CAFA cases” and
26 rejecting Luther’s strict construction of CAFA against removal because it was inconsistent with
27 Dart Cherokee l.
28 19. Likewise, Luther’s interpretation of CAFA as a “general grant of the right of
NOTICE OF REMOVAL ‘
Case No. 18-cv—4790
Case 3:184 34790 Document 1 Filed 08/08/1 ‘Dage ll Of 14
removal of high—dollar class actions” that excludes nationwide class actions asserting claims under
the Securities Act, Luther, 533 F.3d at 1034, cannot be squared with Dart Cherokee’s
3 characterization of CAFA as a tool to ensure federal consideration of “interstate cases of national
importance.” Dart Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 554i (citation omitted). In fact, other courts have
concluded that application of CAFA to interstate securities class actions of national importance is
\DOOﬂQUl-k
essential to fulﬁll the purposes of CAFA. E HarborView, 581 F. Supp. 2d at 587—88 (concluding
that “CAFA overrides the Securities Act’s anti-removal provision because this case inVolves
exactly the type of case CAFA was concerned about—a large, non-local securities class action
dealing with a matter of national importance, the mortgage-backed securities crisis that is currently
10 wreaking havoc with the national and international economy”). The ruling in Dart Cherokee thus
11 “undercut[s] the theory or reasoning underlying [m] in such a way that [ILlrcr and Dirt
12 Cherokee] are clearly irreconcilable.” m, 781 F.3d at 1183 n.2 (ﬁrst alteration in original)
(citation omitted); m 16 Moore’s Federal Practice - Civil § 107.91[1][b] (2018) (observing
that “[g]iven the Supreme Court’s assertion that no antiremoval presumption applies to cases
15 removed under CAFA,” the decision in Luther was likely incorrect). Thus, Luther has been
16 abrogated.
17 C. Luther Should Be Reconsidered
18 20. If the Court does not conclude that post-Luther decisions have abrogated Luther,
19 Defendants believe Luther should be reconsidered in light of post-Luther developments in the law.
20 21. In addition to Dart Cherokee, shortly after the Ninth Circuit decided ILher, the
21 Seventh Circuit considered the central legal question in ILher—the removability of Securities Act
22 class actions meeting the removal requirements of CAFA. & Katz v. Gerardi, 552 F.3d 558 (7th
23 Cir. 2009). The @ court held that class actions meeting the requirements of CAFA, including
24 those asserting claims under the Securities Act, are removable. Q at 562. In doing so, @
25 expressly disagreed with the reasoning in m.
26 22. In LLher, the court applied the “principle of statutory construction that a statute
27 dealing with a narrow, precise, and speciﬁc subject is not submerged by a later enacted statute
28 covering a more generalized spectrum.” Luther, 533 F.3d at 1034 (citation omitted). The court
NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case No. 18-cv-4790.
Case 3:185 ‘
34790 Document 1 Filed 08/08/1 g .
3age 12 of 14
reasoned that the Securities Act was “more specific” than CAFA because it “applies only to claims
arising under the Securities Act,” whereas CAFA “applies to a ‘generalized spectrum’” of class
actions. Id. On the basis that the purported speciﬁc statute controls over the more general statute,
LLlrer found that Section 22(a)’s removal bar applied to bar removal of Securities Act claims
notwithstanding that CAFA expressly permitted such removal.
\DOOQGNUI-RDJNH
23. The Kai court rejected and exposed this ﬂawed reasoning. Contrary to L_uthe_r’s
conclusion, the @ court explained that CAFA is not broader than the Securities Act because
CAFA applies only to “large, multi—state class actions” while the Securities Act applies to “all
securities actions—single—investor suits as well as class actions.” @, 552 F .3d at 561;
SEC v. Glenn W. Turner Enters., Inc., 474 F.2d 476, 481 n.5 (9th Cir. 1973) (noting “[t]he broad
purpose of the Securities Act of 1933”).
24. Thus, the @ court concluded that the language of CAFA itself, “rather than a[ny]
canon” of statutory construction, instructs how CAFA “applies to corporate and securities actions.”
@, 552 F.3d at. 562. CAFA itself contains speciﬁc, enumerated exceptions to removal
jurisdiction that address certain securities actions—none of which applies here—including actions
“concerning a covered security,” those relating to the internal affairs of a corporation, or those
relating to the rights, duties, and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to any security.
Q “This [list of exceptions] tells us all we need to know.” 11. Claims falling within the
“\IGNUl-RMNHO\OW\IG\UIJRDJNIHO
exceptions are not removable, and all “[o]ther securities class actions are removable if they meet
the requirements of” CAFA. Id.
25. Straightforward statutory construction of Congress’s removal statutes confirms that
the holding in 1% is correct and that the holding from LLher should be revisited. In particular,
the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 144l(a)—on which Defendants do not rely for removal
here—authorizes removal when federal courts have “original jurisdiction ,7 “ [e]xcept as otherwise
expressly provided by Act of Congress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Courts have concluded that this
exception language—“[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress”—refers to
anti—removal statutes such as Section 22(a) and prevents removal of an action when such claims are
asserted. & U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Gregg, 348 F. Supp. 1004, 1015 n.10 (D. Del. 1972), rev’d on
/ Case 3218-"
D4790 Document 1 Filed 08/08/1 l_:>age 13 of 14
other grounds, 540 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1976).
26. However, Section 1453—the CAFA removal statute, the statute on which
Defendants do rely for removal—does not include the “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided
by Act of Congress” language. & 28 U.S.C. § 1453. As numerous courts have found, the
\DWﬂQUl-BDJNH
omission of this language in the CAFA removal statute demonstrates that, unlike with Section
1441(a), Congress did not intend anti—removal provisions to bar removal where the action meets
the requirements of CAFA. ﬁg Cal. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Svs. v. WorldCom,Inc., 368 F.3d 86, 106
(2d Cir. 2004) (allowing removal of Securities Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1452 because that
section does not include the exception language); FDIC v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 2012 WL
12897152, at *1 (CD. Cal. Mar. ‘20, 2012) (concluding that grant of federal jurisdiction over
claims involving FDIC made action removable under Section 1441(b), which at that time provided
for removal based on claims arising under federal law, and “trump[ed]” the removal bar in Section
22(a) because Section 1441(b) did not then contain exception language like Section 1441(a)).
Accordingly, straight forward statutory construction reveals that this action should be removable.
United States v. Providence Journal Co., 485 U.S. 693, 704-05 (1988) (citation omitted) (observing
that when two statutes included “[e]xcept_as otherwise authorized by law,” but that “by way of
vivid contrast,” the third did not, the third statute provided for no exception); Russello v. United
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHr—l
States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983) (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (“[W]here Congress
.includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same
OOQOKUI-RUJNHOWOOQQUIADJNHG
inclusion or exclusion”). The Luther court never considered CAFA’s plain language.
27. For these reasons, Defendants respectfully submit that Katz is the correctly reasoned
decision, and that, to the extent necessary, Luther should be reconsidered. Tellingly, the current
divide in authority led the author of the district court decision afﬁrmed by the Ninth Circuit in
Luther, the Hon. Mariana Pfaelzer, to observe in another case, “Defendants appear to have
nonfrivolous arguments for a change in the law due to post—Luther developments.” Pub. Emps.’
Ret. Svs. ofMiss. v. Morgan Stanley, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 1075 n.1 (CD. Cal. 2009). See also 2
McLaughlin on Class Actions § 12:6 (14th ed. 2017) (collecting authorities and concluding Katz’s
Case 3:183: 904790 Document 1 Filed 08/08/1 ,‘Dage 14 of 14
conclusion is correct).
IV. THIS REMOVAL NOTICE IS TIMELY AND SATISFIES ALL PREREOUISITES.
28. Plaintiff ﬁled the above-captioned putative class action on July 3, 2018 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, as case number 18-CIV-03461.
\OWQQUI-BDJNH
The ﬁrst Defendant to be served, Ripple, was served on July 9, 2018. This Notice of Removal is
timely because it has been ﬁled within thirty days of Plaintiff’s earliest purported service of the
Complaint. $28 U.S.C. § 1446.
29. No previous application has been made by the Defendants for this or similar relief.
30. Written notice of the ﬁling of this Notice of Removal vvill be given to the adverse
parties and state court as required by § 1446(d).
By: /s/Peter B. Morrison
NNNNNNNNNHHn—y—H'HHHHH
ooqcxm-noaNi-xcxaoogcxmhpawi—c
Case 3:18-51 )4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08‘ p
Page 1 0f 35
/‘ «
k“, .-
Case 3:18—l w )4790 Document 1-1 Filed 08/081: 1
JOHN T. JASNOCH (CA 281605)
Telephone: 619-233—4565 '
Facsimile: 619—233-0508 JUL. 0 3 2018
Email: jjasnoch@scott—scott.com
KDOOQQUI-Pw
RHIANA SWARTZ 3753
New York, NY 10169 .
Telephone: 212—223—6444
Facsimile: 212—223—6334
10 Email: tlaughlin@scott—scott.com
Counsel for Plaintiﬁ’
AVNER GREENWALD, Individually and on Case No.
18Cl-‘V03461.
16 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
17 Plaintiff, VIOLATIONS OF THE SECURITIES ACT
RIPPLE LABS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
19 XRP II, LLC, a South Carolina Limited Liability
Company, BRADLEY GARLINGI-IOUSE,-
20 CHRISTIAN LARSEN, RON WILL,
ANTOINETTE O’GORMAN, ERIC VAN
21 MILTENBURG, SUSAN ATHEY, ZOE
CRUZ, KEN KURSON, BEN LAWSKY,
22 ANJA MANUEL, and TAKASI-II OKITA,
Case 3:18—11 _ 14790 Document 1-1 Filed 08/08) Pagesof 35
Plaintiff Avner Greenwald (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, by Plaintiffs undersigned attorneys, alleges the following based upon personal knowledge as to
Plaintiffs own acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters based on the investigation
conducted by and through Plaintiffs attorneys, which included, among other things, a review of
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) ﬁlings and commentary, publicly available reports and
information, analyst and media reports, and other commentary analysis. Plaintiff’s investigation into the
KDOOQONU‘ILLDN
matters alleged herein is continuing and many relevant facts are known only to, or are exclusively within
the custody and control of, the Defendants. Plaintiff believes that substantial additional evidentiary
support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable opportunity for formal discovery.
10 NATURE AND SUMMARY OF ACTION
11 1. Plaintiff brings this securities class action under §§5, 12(a)(l), and 15 of the Securities
12 Act of 1933 (the “securities Act”) against (1) Ripple Labs, Inc. (“Ripple Labs” or the “Company”);
13' (2) Ripple Labs’ wholly owned subsidiary, XRP II, LLP (“XRP II”); and (3) certain of Ripple Labs’
14 controlling senior executives and directors (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges
15 that Defendants sold unregistered securities to investors in violation ’of the Securities Act. Defendants
16 are liable in their capacities as issuers, statutory sellers, and/or direct or indirect offerors of XRP.
17 2. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all investors who purchased Ripple tokens
18 (“XRP” or “Ripples”) on or after July 3, 2015 and were damaged thereby.
19 3. XRP qualify as securities under Section 2(a)(l) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
2O §77b(a)(1). The purchase of XRP constitutes an investment contract as XRP purchasers, including
21 Plaintiff, provided consideration (in the form of ﬂat, i.e., US. dollars or other cryptocurrencies) in
22 exchange for XRP. XRP is in investment in a common enterprise and purchasers reasonably expected to
23 derive proﬁts ﬁom their ownership of XRP. Defendants promoted this proﬁt motive as a reason to
24 purchase XRP.
25 4. No registration statements have been ﬁled with the SEC or have been in effect with
26 respect to the XRP offerings alleged herein.
Case 3:18: _ )4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08) Page 4 of 35
5. All 100 billion XRP in existence were created out of thin air by Ripple Labs.1 Twenty
billion XRP, or 20% of all XRP in existence, were given to the individual founders of Ripple Labs,
including Defendant Chris Larsen, and the remaining 80 billion were retained by Ripple Labs.
6. Defendants have since earned massive proﬁts by selling the retained XRP to the public,
O‘xU‘I-b-
without complying with federal securities laws, in what is essentially an ongoing initial coin offering
(“1C0”). Like an initial public offering (“IPO”), in an ICO, digital assets are sold to consumers in
7 exchange for legal tender or other cryptocurrencies (most often Bitcoin and Ethereum).
7. Defendants sell XRP from the retained supply and use the proceeds from the sales to fund
10 8. In order to increase demand for XRP, and thereby increase the proﬁts derived by selling
11 m, Defendants portray XRP as a good investment, solicit sales, express optimistic price predictions,
12 and conﬂate Ripple Labs’ enterprise customer programs with usage and value of XRP. Ripple Labs
13 greatly increased these efforts to push XRP on the general public in recent years.
14 9. These solicitation efforts were conducted by interstate means, as were the sales of XRP.
16 10. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California
17 Constitution, Article VI, §10 and Section 22 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §77v. The claims alleged
18 herein arise under §§5, 12(a)(1), and 15 of the Securities Act. See 15 U.S.C. §§77e, 771, and 770.
19 Section 22 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §77v(a), expressly states that “[e]xcept as provided in section
20 77p(c) of this title, no case arising under this subchapter and brought in any State court of competent
21 jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States.” Section 77p(c) refers to “covered class
22 action[s] brought in any State court involving a covered security, as set forth in subsection (b),” and
23 subsection (b) of §77p in turn includes within its scope only covered class actions “based upon the
This is unlike other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum that are “mined” by those
27 validating transactions on their networks.
Case 3:18-l____/)4790 Document
Filed 08/081\/.’ Page 5 of 35
)—-l
statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof.” See 15 U.S.C. §77p. This is an action
N asserting only federal law claims. Thus, this action is not removable to federal court.
11. Venue is proper in this jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of California Code of
Civil Procedure §395(a$ because certain Defendants reside in San Mateo County.
12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as a result of acts of Defendants
occurring in and/or aimed at the state of California in connection with Defendants’ unregistered
offer and sale of securities in violation of §§5, 12(a)(1), and 15 of the Securities Act.
00 13. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they reside in or
\D have their principal places of business in California.
H 14. Lead Plaintiff Avner Greenwald is an individual and a resident of Israel. Plaintiff
bought and sold XRP in both USD and Bitcoin between December 14, 2017 and May 12, 2018, and
suffered losses on those investments as a result of the scheme alleged herein.
15. Defendant Ripple Labs, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 300 Montgomery Street, 12th Floor, San Francisco, California. Ripple Labs operates
H RippleNet, a global payments network based on blockchain technology. Through RippleNet, banks
and payment providers can use XRP to process, clear, and settle financial transactions in real—time .
worldwide. Ripple Labs created XRP and, at all relevant times, solicited purchases of XRP by
)— Plaintiff and the Class for its own beneﬁt and the beneﬁt of its executives and owners.
N 16. Defendant XRP II, LLC is wholly owned subsidiary of Ripple Labs. XRP II is a
M South Carolina limited liability company with its principal place of business in San Francisco,
N California. XRP II sold XRP, and solicited the purchases of XRP by Plaintiff and the Class for its
N own beneﬁt and the beneﬁt of its parent, Ripple Labs, and its executives and owners.
N 17. Defendant Bradley Garlinghouse (“Garlinghouse”) is. the Chief Executive Ofﬁcer
N (“CEO”) of Ripple Labs and has been since January 2017. Garlinghouse was Ripple Labs’
N President and Chief Operating Ofﬁcer from April 2015 through December 2016. Garlinghouse is a
N California citizen and a resident of San Mateo County. Garlinghouse exercised control over Ripple
/' \p - r"
Case 3:18-12 ‘, 14790 Document 1-1 Filed 08/08)1 x x Page 6 of 35
Labs and directed and/ or authorized, directly or indirectly, the sale and/or solicitation of XRP to the
18. Defendant Christian (Chris) Larsen (“Larsen”), is Executive Chairrnan of Ripple
Labs’ Board of Directors and has been since January 2017. Larsen is also. a co-founder of Ripple
\DOOQQUI-FUJNi—A
Labs and a former CEO of Ripple Labs (through December 2016). Larsen exerciscd control over
Ripple Labs and directed and/or authorized, directly or indirectly, the sale and/or solicitation of
XRP to the public. p
19.” Defendant Ron Will (“Will”) is Chief Financial Ofﬁcer of Ripple Labs and has been
r since November 2017.’ Will exercised control over Ripple Labs and directed and/or authorized,
directly or indirectly, the sale and] or solicitation of XRP to the public.
I—‘lh‘
20. Defendant Antoinette O’Gorman (“O’Gorman”) is Chief Compliance Ofﬁcer of
Ripple Labs. O’Gorman exercised control over Ripple Labs and directed and/or authorized,
r—t \
directly or indirectly, the sale and/or solicitation of XRP to the public.
21. Defendant Eric van Miltenburg (“van Miltenburg”) is Senior Vice ]President for
Business Operations of Ripple Labs. Van Nliltenburg exercised control over Ripple Labs and
H directed and/or authorized, directly or indirectly, the sale and/or solicitation of XRP to the public.
22. Defendant Susan Athey (“Athey”) is a Director of Ripple Labs. As a Director, Athey
r-‘dy—I
exercised control over Ripple Labs and directed and/or authorized, directly or indirectly, the sale
H and/or solicitation of XRP to the public.
N 23. Defendant Zoe Cruz (“Cruz”) is a Director of Ripple Labs. As a Director, Cruz
[\J exercised control over Ripple Labs and directed and/or authorized, directly or indirectly,~the sale .
N and/or solicitation of XRP to the public.
N 24. Defendant Ken Kurson (“Kurson”) is a Director, of Ripple Labs. As a Director,
N Kurson exercised control over Ripple Labs and directed and/or authorized, directly or indirectly,
the sale and/or solicitation of XRP to the public.
Case 3:18-1 ,_ 14790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08} , \Page 7 of 35
25. Defendant Ben Lawsky (“Lawsky”) is a Director of Ripple Labs. As a Director,
Lawsky exercised control over Ripple Labs and directed and/or authorized, directly or indirectly,
the sale, andJor solicitation of XRP to the public.
26. Defendant Anja Manuel (“Manuel”) is a Director of Ripple Labs. As a Director,
Manuel exercised control over Ripple Labs and directed and/or authorized, directly or indirectly,
\DOOQONU‘I-P-WN
27. 'Defendant Takashi Okita (“Okita”), is a Director of Ripple Labs. As a Director,
Okita exercised control over Ripple Labs and directed and/or authorized, directly or indirectly, the
sale and/or solicitation of XRP to the public.
10 28. The defendants referred to in 111117-27 are referred to as the “Individual Defendants.”
ll SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
12 A. The Background of XRP
13 29. Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereurn, which are Lmined by those
14 validating transactions on their networks, all 100 billion XRP in existence were created out of thin
15‘ air by Ripple Labs in 2013. Twenty billion XRP, or 20% of the total XRP supply, were given to
16 the individual founders of Ripple Labs,2 with the remaining 80 billion retained by' Ripple Labs.
17 30. As for 80 billion XRP held by Ripple Labs, the plan was to sell them and use the
18 proceeds to ﬁmd and improve Company operations, including the XRP ledger network.
19 31. Ripple Labs’ own wiki notes that “Ripple Labs sells XRP to fund its operations and
20 promote the network. This allows Ripple Labs to have a spectacularly skilled team to develop and
21 promote the Ripple protocol and network.”3 . .
22 32. In the ﬁrst quarter of 2018, “market participants purchased $16.6 million [of XRP]
23 directly from XRP II, LLC,” XRP II also “sold $151.1 million worth of XRP” on exchange.4
Defendant Chris Larsen received 9.5 billion XRP.
Ripple credits, https://wiki.ripple.corn/Ripple_credits#XRP funds the development and
27 promotion of the prrotocol and the network (last visited June 29, 2018).
COIVIPLAINT
Case 3:18— _,.)4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/081 nPage8 of 35
33. Ripple Labs’ primary business involves the operation of an open ledger protocol,
payment, and exchange network. The native cryptocurrency for Ripple Labs’ exchange network is
XRP. Thus, XRP is both an investment in the Company (as sales are used to fund Company
operations with the expectation that such investments in the Company will increase the value of
XRP) and an investment in itself (with the expectation that the value of XRP will increase), as well
as a means of exchange promoted by Ripple Labs.
\OOO\IO\UI-P
34. Ripple Labs’ exchange network is based around the XRP Ledger. The XRP Ledger
consists of many servers, called nodes, which accept and process transactions. Client applications
sign and send transactions to nodes, which then relay these candidate transactions throughout the
10 network for processing. Transactions are then veriﬁed and become part of the XRP Ledger through
ll a consensus process. Every XRP transaction 'must be made through Ripple Labs’ XRP Ledger,
12 which is maintained by Defendants. In order to open an account on the XRP Ledger, users must
13 maintain a minimum account balance of 20 XRP. In addition, each time a transaction is made in
14 XRP, there is a transaction cost to users.
15 35. Ripple Labs’ founders and other Company insiders have also proﬁted individually
16 from their XRP holdings. In January 2018, Ripple co—founder Defendant Larsen was named one of
17 the richest people in the United States, with an estimated net worth of $59.9 billion, primarily due
18 to the increase in value in XRP and his personal ownérship of billions of XRP and his significant
19 “stake in the Company.5
20 36. Defendants have control over how many XRP are in the market.
21 37. No registration statement has been filed for XRP with the SEC and no registration
22. statement is in effect for XRP.
25 Q1 2018 XRP Markets Report, https://ripp1e.com/insights/ql~2018—xrp—markets—report/ (last
visited June 29, 2018).
https://www. cnbc. com/201 8/0 1/04/ripple—co-founder-is-now—richer—than-thc— goo gle-founders—
27 on-paper.html (last visited on June 29, 2018).
Case 3218—. y
)4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08; . Page 9 of 35
B. Defendants Splicit XRP Sales
38. From 2013 to the present, Defendants and their afﬁliates have been engaged in an
ongoing scheme to sell XRP to the general public.
39. Ripple Labs dedicates an entire section of its website to providing advice on “How to
Buy XRP.” This section provides links-to online exchanges and instructions on “[h]ow to buy
XRP” on those exchanges.6 It also has a section titled “Market Performance” which proclaims that
\OOOQQUI-Ilwtg
Ripple Labs is “committed to the long term health and stability of XRP markets.”7
40. ,Ripple Labs also consistently promotes the availability of XRP on exchanges. For
example, on May 18, 2017, its Senior Vice-President for Business Development, Patrick Grifﬁn,
10 tweeted a link to the Kraken exchange with the caption: “Kraken Introduces New Fiat Pairs for
11 XRP Trading! USD, JPY, CAD, EUR @ Ripple.”B
12 41. Similarly, on or about December 21, 2017, Ripple Labs tweeted in Japanese that
13 XRP was now available on over 50 exchanges.9 That tweet linked to an article on Ripple Labs’
14 website which described XRP as “the fastest and most scalable [digital] asset on the market.”10 It
15 continued, “[t]he market is taking notice of XRP’s speed, reliability and scalability — which has
16 strengthened the demand for XRP and where it’s listed. In fact, we’re proud to announce that XRP
17 has gone from being listed on six exchanges earlier this year to more than 50 worldwide.” The
18 article also links to a number of online exchanges where XRP can be purchased, and states that
19 “XRP’s long—term value is determined by its utility — including its ability to help ﬁnancial
20 institutions source liquidity for payments into and out of emerging markets.”
22 XRP Buying Guide, https://ripple.corm’xm/buy—xrp/ (last visited on June 29, 2018).
23 Market Performance, https:.//ripple.com/xrp/market—performance/ (last visited on June 29, 2018)
24 @patgrifﬁn9, httpsz/ltwitter.com/patgrifﬁn9/status/865251321867231233 (last visited on June
29,2018).
@Ripple, https://twitter.com/Mpple/status/943999526783905792 (last visited on June 29, 2018).
XRP Now Available on 50 Exchanges Worldwide, httpsz/lripple.com/insights/xrp—now—
27 available—on—SO-exchanges—worldwide/ (last visited on June 29, 2018).
Case 3:18—c\ .
4790 Document'l-l Filed 08/08/L . .Page 10 of 35
42. Ripple Labs also hosts conferences to generate interest in XRP. For example,
[\J between October 16 and October 18, 2017, it hosted a conference named “Swell” in Toronto.
Ripple Labs acknowledged that “[a]nticipation around the event spurred a meaningful spike in
XRP, pushing it up 100 percent[.]”11
43. On the same day, CoinDesk, a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which has an
KOOONONU‘I-PL»
ownership interest in Ripple Labs, published an article titled “Ripple Price Passes Historic $1
Milestone”,12 This was just one of many instances in which Ripple Labsi would promote price
movements of XRP.
44. Ripple Labs’ promotion of XRP’s price reached new highs in December 2017. In
10 one instance, Ripple’s XRP product manager retweeted a tweet exclaiming: “Wow, XRP at all-time
11 high! Forget about bitcoin, we’re all in on XRP!” (Emphasis added.)13
12 45. Around that same time, on or about December 7, 2017, Ripple Labs announced that
13 it had placed “55 billion XRP in a cryptographically—secured escrow account to create certainty of
14 XRP supply at any given time”:4 It had been previously announced in May 2017 that this would
15 happen along with a limited distribution schedule. This was done to limit the available supply of
16 XRP and drive price appreciation, which allowed Defendants to maximize proﬁts from XRP sales.
17 The December 7, 2017 announcement stated:
18 By securing the lion’s share of XRP in escrow, people can now mathematically verify
the maximum supply that can enter the market. While Ripple has proved to be a
19 responsible steward of XRP supply for almost ﬁve years — and has clearly
demonstrated a tremendous track record of investing in and supporting the XRP
22 14Q3 2017 XRP Markets Report, https://ripple.com/xrp/q3~2017—xrp-markets-report/ (last
visited on June 29, 2018).
.. 23 12
Ripple Price Passes Historic $1 Milestone, https://www.coindesk.com/ripple—price~passes—
24 historic~1-milestone/ (last visited on June 29, 2018).
25 @warpaul, httpszlltwitter.com/yoshitaka_kitao/stams/940785785925709829 (last visited on June
https://ripp1e.com/insights/ripple—escrows—55—billion—xrp-for—supply—predictability (last visited on
27 June 29, 2018).
Case 3:18-(‘1 —.
4790 Document l—l Filed 08/08/H - Page 11 of 35
ecosystem — this lockup eliminates any concern that Ripple could ﬂood the market,
which we’ve pointed out before IS a scenario that would be bad for Ripple! 5
46. The article contained a button to allow readers to share it on Twitter with the caption
“Game changer for $XRP! 55 billion XRP now in escrow.”16 Ripple also promoted this article through
its own tweet, which proclaimed: “55B $XRP is now in escrow. Interested in what this means for
$XRP markets?”17 Garlinghouse was even more enthusiastic, tweeting: “Boom! 55 B $XRP now in
\000\IO\UI-I>n
escrow. Good for supply predictability and trusted, healthy $XRP markets. Glad to ﬁnally let this
#cryptokitty out of the bag!”18
47. Ripple’s public commitment to limit the supply of XRP had its intended effect. In the
weeks that followed, the price of XRP rapidly increased, from approximately $0.22 per token on
December 7, 201.7 to $3.38 per token on January 7, 2018.19
48. Ripple Labs’ CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, has also been a vocal advocate for investing
in XRP. In a December 14, 2017 interview with Canada’s Business News Network (“BNN”), when
asked if he is personally invested in XRP, the CEO stated “I’m long XRO, I’m very, very long
XRP as a percentage of my personal balance sheet.” He continued, stating that he is “not long some
of the other [digital] assets, because it is not clear to me what’s the real utility, what problem are
they really solving.” And ended by reiterating “if you’re solving a real problem, if it’s a scaled
problem, then I think you have a huge opportunity to continue to grow that. We have been really
fortunate obviously, I remain very, very, very long XRP, there is an expression in the industry
HODL, instead of hold, its HODL . . . I’m on the HODL side” (emphasis added).
25 https://twitter.com/Ripple/status/938933967956389889.
26 https://twitter.com/bgarlinghouse/statlis/93 8933791 145 33 6832?]ang=en.
27 XRP would subsequently lose nearly all its value in just over three months, falling to a low of
approximately $0. 48 per token on April 6, 2018.
Case 3218—1: “1 I4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/~ _ Page 12 of 35
49. Later that same day, Garlinghouse tweeted: “Bloomberg welcomes $XRP to
N @theterminal and gets it right — #2 market cap behind $BTC at ~$8_0BB!”2°
50. About a week later, on or about December 22, 2017, Garlinghouse tweeted an article
titled “Bitcoin Is So 2017 as Ripple Soars at Year End,” with the caption “I’ll let the headline speak
for itself. $xrp.”21
KOOOQChUi-Pw
51. On or about January 17, 2018, Garlinghouse tweeted a CNBC article titled “Ripple is
sitting on close to $80 billion and could cash out hundreds of millions per month-but it isn’t,” with
the caption “A good read on Why fostering a healthy $XRP ecosystem is a top priority at @Ripple.”
52. However, the reality was that Ripple Labs was doing exactly that — cashing out.
10 Defendants sold at least $167.7 million worth of XRP between January 1, 2018 and March 31,
12 53. Given its reliance on sales of XRP to ﬁnd its operations, it is unsurprising that
13 Ripple Labs’ aggressively markets XRP to drive demand, increase the price of XRP, and
14 consequently, its own proﬁts.
15 54. Defendants’ advertising and social media postings also conﬂate adoption and use of
16 Ripple Labs’ xCurrent and xVia enterprise solutions with adoption and use of XRP, even though
17 they oﬁen have little to no correlation and do not involve the XRP Ledger. Defendants do this to
18 drive demand for 'XRP and thereby maximize proﬁts from XRP sales.
19 55. According to its site, “xCurrent is Ripple’s enterprise software solution that enables
20 banks to instantly settle cross—border payments with end-to-end tracking. Using XCurrent, banks
21 message each other in real-time to conﬁrm payment details prior to initiating the transaction and to
22 conﬁrm delivery once it settles. ”22
@bgarlinghouse, https://twitter.com/bgarlinghouse/status/94l375649549246464 (last visited on
24 June 29, 2018).
25 2’ @bgarlinghouse, https://twitter.com/bgarlinghouse/status/944325730338357248 (last visited on
Process Payments, xCurrent, httpszl/ripple.com/solutions/process-payments/ (last visited on June
27 29, 2018).
Case 3:184 ,
14790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/2_ .Page 13 of 35
56. xCurrent doesn’t 'operate on the same technology as XRP or even require the use of
XRP. In short, there is no reason to believe that adoption of xCurrent would correlate in any way
with adoption of XRP.
57. Nor does use of Ripple Labs’ xVia product require adoption of XRP. Ripple Labs
states that its xVia product is “for corporates, payment providers and banks who want to send
KDOONOWtUI-PUJN
payments across various netwOrks using a standard interface.”23
58. Ripple Labs nevertheless conﬂates the adoption of xCurrent and xVia with the
adoption of XRP.
59. Another of Ripple Labs’ enterprise solutions, xRapid, which does use XRP, is also
10 used to drive XRP sales (xRapid, along with xCurrent and xVia, are together referred to herein as
11 “Ripple Labs’ Enterprise Solutions”).
12 60. Indeed, Ripple Labs regularly promotes its improvements to the XRP ecosystem,
13 which are intended to increase demand for XRP and thus potential returns for XRP investors. For
14 example, in describing the reasons behind the dramatic price appreciation of XRP during the fourth
15 quarter of 2017, Ripple speciﬁcally cited as of “particular importance,” the Company’s various business
16 initiatives, including: (i) Ripple’s partnership with American Express/Santander; (ii) Ripple’s activation
17 of the previously discussed escrow of XRP to limit periodic offers and distributions; and (iii) a
18 Japanese/Korean banking consortium backed by the Company.24 In the report, Ripple stated that its
19 “consistent and steadfast support of XRP is a major advantage as the payments industry continues to
20 seriously consider it as an alternative liquidity solution.”25
21 61. A November 2015 white paper by the Company highlighted “XRP’s Role on Ripple
22 and the Internet of Value” and how the Company’s technologies could turn a “Spark to a Wildﬁre”
Send Payments, xVia, https://ripp1e.com/solutions/send—payments/ (last visited on June 29,
25 2018)
26 Q4 2017 XRP Markets Report, https://ripple.com/insights/q4—2017—xrp-markets—reportl.
Case 3:18—1 .: .4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/f Page 14 of 35
by increasing liquidity and efficiencies for cross—border transactions for the Company’s banking
{\J clients. A February 2016 white paper followed up on those purported “network effects,” claiming
that the use of the Ripple network at XRP would increase banks’ returns on investment by
improving the global payment infrastructure.
62. 'In addition, on March 20, 2017, Ripple Labs retweeted a Bloomberg article regarding
Labs Enterprise Solutions, proclaiming “Ripple is the only company in this
KOOO\lO\U‘I-l>-UJ
adoption of Ripple
space with real customers who are really in production.”26
63. The price of XRP increased rapidly following this tweet and on March 24, 2017
Ripple Labs tweeted: “The price of #XRP continues to surge showing that people are looking for
10 #bitcoin alternatives.”27
11 64. On April 26, 2017, Ripple Labs tweeted a link to an article on its own site,
12 proclaiming “#Ripple welcomes 10' additional customers to our #blockchain #paymentsnetwork.”28
13 Neither this tweet nor the article it linked to informed readers that the blockchain payments
14 network did not refer to the XRP Ledger, but rather Ripple’s xCurrent enterprise solution.
15 65. Just days later, on May 3, 2017, with the price of XRP continuing to rise, Ripple
1.6 Labs tweeted: “#Ripple adoption is sparking interest in XRP ‘which has had an impressive rally in
17 the last months’ via @Nasdaq.”29
18 66. Articles such as “Ripple XRP price picks up pace as demand for xVia API increases”
19 have made the direct connection between the price of XRP and the adoption of the Company’s
24 @Ripple, https://twitter.com/Ripple/status/8440097783 09357568 (last visited on June 29, 2018).
25 @Ripple, https://twitter.com/Ripple/status/845347809830195200 (last visited June 29, 2018).
26 @Ripple, https://twitter.com/Ripple/status/857267304618278912 (last visited June 29, 2018).
27 @Ripple, https://twitter.com/Ripple/status/859904105916923904 (last visited June 29, 2018).
Case 3:18—( 4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/: Page 15 of35
Enterprise Solutions.30 Ripple itself has made this link, for example tweeting on May 16, 2017: “The
appeal that Ripple has towards traditional ﬁnancial institutions is a big advantage it has over Bitcoin.”31
67. On June 29, 2017, Ripple Labs tweeted a clip of an interview its CEO Brad
Garlinghouse gave on CNBC with the caption: “#XRP—up 4000% this year—has shown the market
favors a real use case for #digitalassets . . .
3’32 In that interview, Garlinghouse proclaims that
\DOO\IO\UI-I>U3N
“digital assets are in a position to be more valuable than gold,” and describes XRP as “solving a
real-world use case, it’s not just about speculators.”
68. On September 11, 2017, Garlinghouse stated in an interview with CNBC: “People are
looking at the success Ripple has been having as a company, I
and think that’s increased the value of
10 XRP.”33 (emphasis added). He continued by stating that Ripple wants “to keep focusing on making
11 XRP a valuable payments tool, and that value will increase accordingly,” and he was “voting with my
12 . . . pocketbook on the future increased value of cryptocurrencies.”34
13 69. On November 27, 2017, Garlinghouse tweeted “Ripple & $XRP are giving business
14 ‘what they want in a #blockchain,”’ along with a link to a Motley F 001 tweetss That Motley Fool
15 tweet in turn stated that “AmEx and Banco Santader will use Ripple’s blockchain network for
16 instant intl. fund transfers. Could be a big deal for Ripple’s XRP cryptocurrency. $ASP $SAN”
17 (emphasis added.)36
19 3°
httpszllglobalcoinreport.eom/ripple—xrp—price—picks~up—pace—as—demand-for—xvia—api-increases/.
2o 3‘
@Ripple, https://twitter.com/Ripple/status/864635614020251649.
@Ripple, https://twitter.com/Ripple/status/SBOS32198025121793 (last visited June 29, 2018).
htpps://www.cnbc.corn/2017/09/1 1/ripple—ceo-brad—garlinghouse—on—bitcOin—and—xrp.html (last
23 visited June 29, 2018).
25 @bgarlinghouse, https://tWitter.com/bgarlinghouse/status/935225940845711366 (last Visited on
@themotleyfool, https://twitter.com/themotleyfool/status/934850515640471553 (last visited on
Case 3:184:\ ",4790_ Document 1-1 Filed 08/08/11:, Page 16 of 35
70. Similarly, on December 14, 2617, Ripple Labs tweeted: “The Japan Bank
Consortium launched a Ripple pilot with two large Korean Banks * the ﬁrst time money moves
from Japan to Korea over RippleNet.”37 On that same day, Ripple Labs tweeted“‘@garlinghouse
[its CEO’s twitter handle] on why crypto prices will be driven by real utility, the multi—trillion $
problem @Ripple is solving and ‘why $XRP will come out on top.”381
71. Ripple Labs would later acknowledge that “neither the AlVlEX news nor the Korean
bank initiative involved XRP.”
72. Nevertheless, this tweet linked to a BNN interview with Mr. Garlinghouse, in which
The reason why XRP has performed so well this year, we’re solving a real problem,
10 it’s a multi-trillion dollar problem around cross-border payments. There is a lot of
friction its very slow its expensive, we’re working with the institutions to deal with
11 'that, so people have gotten excited. We now have over 100 customers we’ve
[A]t the end of the day the value of digital assets will be driven by their utility. If
14 they are solving a real problem, and that problem has scale, and that problem, you
know there is real value there, then there will be demand for the tokens and the price
15 will go up. For XRP we have seen because its required, its something that can really
reduce the friction, and we’re talking about a multi—trillion dollar problem in how
16 cross-border payments ﬂow. And so, I think if you drive real utility, yes there’s
going to be demand for that. XRP is up 100x this year, and I think it’s because the
17 problem we are solving people realize is a real problem, it’s a big problem.
18 (Emphasis added.) .
19 73. On January 4, 2018, following XRP’S rapid price increase, The New York Times
20 published an article by Nathaniel Popper titled: “Rise of Bitcoin Competitor Ripple Creates Wealth
to Rival Zuckerberg.”39 Mr. Popper tweeted a link to this article with the caption: “On the rise of
@Ripple, httpszl/twitter.com/Ripple/status/941501026267316224 (last visited on June 29, 2018).
25 3" ) .
@Ripple, https://twitter.com/Ripple/status/941352005058011137 (last visited on June 29, 2018).
@nathanielpopper, “Rise of Bitcoin Competitor Ripple Creates Wealth to Rival Zuckerberg,”
27 NY TIMES (Jan. 4, 2018.).
Case 3:18-< 4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/1 Page 17 of 35
If this is a tulip fever, the fever has Spread to Chrysanthemums and poppies”4°. He ﬁirther
commented, “I’ve asked several people close to banks if banks are indeed planning to begin using
Ripple’s token XRP, in a serious way, which is what investors seem to assume when they buy in at
the current XRP. prices. This is a sampling what I heard back:
0 Actual use of XRP by banks is not something I’ve heard about, I ﬁnd the
run up absolutely blufﬁng, as do all the blockchain folks I know at large
\Oooﬂoa-hm
o XRP isn’t used for anything. The hope is that someday it will be by
banks, but there really aren’t banks signaling that yet.
a I would be surprised if there have been any real bank transactions done
with it (outside of maybe test transactions), despite people making claims
0 It’s not clear to me why XRP would be used by banks at all. XRP could
potentially be adopted by consumers as a payment rail, although they
don’t yet have meaningful traction in that regard.
a I haven’t seen a sufficiently large catalyst in the ﬁmdamentals of Ripple to
12 justify a greater than 10x move in the price of $XRP in the last month.
0 In a few years we’re going to look back on 2017 and think WTF Were we
thinking.”41
74. Defendant Garlinghouse publicly responded to this, tweeting: “Over the last few
months I’ve spoken with ACTUAL banks and payment providers. They are indeed planning to use
xRapid (our XRP liquidity product) in a serious way . . . .” He follows up stating, “I don’t think
you want to hear about validation for XRP. The @NYTimes should be above spreading
anonymous FUD.”42 FUD, which stands for fear, uncertainty, and doubt, is an expression
frequently used among crypto-investors to deride or undermine criticism of an asset.
75. On January 4, 2018, Ripple’s XRP product manager also attacked Mr. Popper,
tweeting: “Do you think I left #Bitcoin and joined @Ripple to build bank software? Think again.
@nathanielpopper, https://'twitter.com/bgarlinghouse/status/949129952716234752 (last visited
24 on June 29, 2018).
25 @nathanielpopper, https://'twitter.com/bgarlinghouse/stams/949129952716234752 (last visited
on June 29, 2018).
@nathanielpopper, httpsz/ftwitter.com/bgarlinghouse/status/949129952716234752 (last visited
27 on June 29, 2018).
Case 3:18—( ,4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/1 Page 18 of 35
$XRP.”43 This tweet linked to a Ripple Labs tweet stating that “3 of the top 5 global money
transfer companies plan to use XRP in payment ﬂows in 2018. Even more in the pipeline.”
76. In January 2018, Ripple Labs touted “a partnership with MoneyGram — one of the
world’s largest money transfer companies — to use xRapid and XRP for near real-time cross—border
\DOOQO‘xU‘I-hwlold
payments. In addition, there are a number of other xRapid deals at various stages of completion in
the pipeline.” It also stated that it wanted “to build the necessary markets infrastructure for
eventual direct usage of XRP by ﬁnancial institutions.” Defendant Garlinghouse commented on
this partnership, saying: “And to be clear: @MoneyGram announcement is one step in a marathon
ahead to truly make $XRP the global liquidity solution for payment providers and banks.”44
77. By way of the internet, including Ripple Labs’ website, Twitter, and the over 50
cryptocurrency exchanges that trade XRP, interstate means are used in connection with the offer
and sale of XRP.
C. XRP Is a Security
78. Plaintiff and the Class invested ﬁat, including US. dollars, and other digital
NNNp—tr—dv—AHi—‘v—ti—Ir—IHi—n
currencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, to purchase XRP.
79. Defendants sold XRP to the general public through global, online cryptocurrency
exchanges. XRP can be bought or sold on over 50 exchanges.
80. Every purchase of XRP by a member of the public is an investment contract.
81. Under Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act, a “security” is defined to include an
“investment contract.” 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(1). An investment contract is “an investment of money
in a common enterprise with proﬁts to come solely from the efforts of others.” SE. C. v, W.J.
Howey Co., 328 US. 293, 301 (1946). Speciﬁcally, a transaction qualiﬁes as an investment
contract and, thus, a security if it is: (1) an investment; (2) in a common enterprise; (3) with a
@Warren. Paul Anderson, https://twitter.com/warpaul (last visited on June 29, 2018). ‘
@bgarlinghouse, https://twitter.corn/bgarlinghouse/status/951461582424358912 (last visited on
June 29, 2018). . \
Case 3:18-c‘ £1790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/: Page 19 of 35
reasonable expectation of proﬁts; (4) to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of
N others. See United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837, 852-53 (1975). This
deﬁnition embodies a “ﬂeirible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to
meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others
on the promise of proﬁ , and thereby “permits the fulﬁllment of the statutory purpose of
\OOO\IO\U‘I-§UJ
compelling full and fair disclosure relative to the issuance of ‘the many types of instruments that in
our commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of a security.”’ Howey, 328 U.S. at 299.
Accordingly, in analyzing whether something is a security, “form should be disregarded for
substance,” and the emphasis should be “on economic realities underlying a transaction, and not on
10 the name appended thereto.” Forman, 421 US. at 849.
11 82. Plaintiff and the Class were investing in a common enterprise with a reasonable
12 expectation of profits when they invested in XRP.
13 83. The profits of Plaintiff and the Class are intertwined with the fortunes of Ripple
14 Labs. Ripple Labs concedes that it “sells XRP to ﬁmd its operations and promote the network:
15 This allows Ripple Labs to have a spectacularly skilled team to develop and promote the Ripple
16 protocol and network.”"’5
17 84. Notably, the SEC has already concluded that virtual Currency substantially similar to
18 XRP are “securities and therefore subject to the federal securities laws.” As stated by the SEC,
19 “issuers of distributed ledger or blockchain technology-based securities must register offers and
2o sales of such securities unless a valid exemption applies.”46
21 85. No such valid exemption from registration requirements exists for XRP.
22 86. The current SEC Chairman, Jay Clayton, III, recently said, “I have yet to see an ICO
23 that doesn’t have a sufﬁcient number of hallmarks of a security.”47
Ripple credits, https://wiki.ripple.com/Ripple credits#XRP (last visited on June 29, 2018).
Press Release. SEC Issues Investigative Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were
26 Securities, SEC (July 25, 2017), https: //www. sec. gov/news/press—release/ZOl7— 131.
Dave Michaels and Paul Vigna, “SEC Fires Warning Shot Against Coin
27 Offerings,” WALL STREET JOURNAL
(Nov. 9, 2017).
Case 3:184 4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/: Page 20 of 35
87. This suit is brought as a class action pursuant to Section 382 of the California Code
of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a Class of all persons or entities who purchased XRP from July 3,
2015 through the present. Excluded from the Class are Defendants; the ofﬁcers and directors of the
#0111.t
Company and XRP II at all relevant times; members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any entity in which Defendants have or had a
controlling interest. ‘
00 88. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class deﬁnition
if further investigation and/or
discovery indicate that the Class deﬁnition should be modiﬁed.
10 89. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
ll While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be
12 ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of members of the
13 proposed Class. The members of the proposed Class may be identiﬁed from records maintained by the
14 Company and niay be notiﬁed of the pendency of this action by mail, using customary forms of notice
15 that are commonly used in securities class actions.
16 90. Plaintiff‘ s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class as all members of
17 the Class are similarly affected by Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
18 91. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class and
1‘9 has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation.
20 92. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and predominate
21 over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law and
22 fact common to the Class are:
23 (a) whether XRP are securities under the Securities Act;
24 (b) whether the sale of XRP violates the registration requirements of the Securities
26 (c) to what extent Plaintiff and members of the Class have sustamed'damages and the
27 proper measure of damages.
Case 3:18-c’ 4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/1 , Page 21 of 35
93. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efﬁcient
N adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore, as the
.h individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class to individually redress the wrongs
done to them. There will be no difﬁculty in the management of this action as a class action.
0\ CAUSES OF ACTION ‘
Unregistered Offering and Sale of Securities in Violation of
Sections 5 and 12(a)(1)of the Securities Act
10 94. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, realleges and incorporates
11 herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint,
12 and further alleges as follows:
13 95. Defendants, and each of them, by engaging in the conduct described above, directly or
14 indirectly, made use of means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce
15 or of the mails, to offer to sell or to sell securities, or to carry or cause such Securities to be carried
16 through the mails or in interest commerce for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale.
17 96. XRP are securities within the meaning of Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
18 §77b(a)(1).
19 97. Plaintiff and members of the Class purchased XRP securities.
20 98. No registration statements have been ﬁled with the SEC or have been in effect with
21 respect to any of the offerings alleged herein. N0 exemption to the registration requirement applies.
22 99. SEC Rule 159A provides that, for purposes of Section l2(a)(2), an “issuer” in “a primary
23 offering of securities” shall be considered a statutory seller. 17 C.F.R. § 230.159A(a). The Securities
24 Act in turn deﬁnes “issuer” to include every person who issues or proposes to issue any security. 15
25 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(4). Ripple Labs and XRP II are issuers of XRP.
26 100. The US. Supreme Court has held that statutory sellers under §12(a)(l) also include “the
27 buyer’s immediate seller” and any person who actively solicited the sale of the securities to plaintiff and
Case 3218-6 .4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/2 _
.did so for ﬁnancial gain. See Pinter v. Dahl, 486 US. 622, 644- n.21 & 647 (1988); accord, e.g., Steed
N Finance LDC v. Nomura Sec. Int ’1, Inc. No. 00 Civ. 8058, 2001 WL 1111508, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20,
2001). That is, §12(a)(1) liability extends to sellers who actively solicit the sale of securities with a
motivation to serve their own ﬁnancial interest or those of the securities owner. Pinter v. Dahl, 486 US.
622, 647 (1988); Capri v. Murphy, 856 F.2d 473, 478 (2d Cir. 1988). Ripple Labs, XRP II, and the
KDOO\IO\U‘I-J>~UJ
individual Defendants are all statutory sellers.
101. By reason of the foregoing, each of the Defendants have violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and
12(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§77e(a), 77e(c), and 771(a).
102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unregistered sale of securities, Plaintiff
10 and the Class have suffered damages in connection with their XRP purchases.
12 Violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act
(Against Ripple Labs and the Individual Defendants)
103. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, realleges and incorporates
herein by reference, each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint,
104. This Count is asserted against Defendants Ripple Labs and the Individual Defendants
(collectively, the “Control Person Defendants”) under Section 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §77o.
105. The Control Person Defendants, by virtue of their ofﬁces, ownership, agency, agreements
or understandings, and speciﬁc acts were, at the time of the wrongs alleged herein, and as set forth
herein, controlling persons within the meaning of Section 15 of the Securities Act/ The Control Person
Defendants, and each of them, had the power and inﬂuence and exercised the same to cause the
unlawful offer and sale of XRP securities as described herein.
106. The Control Person Defendants, separately or together, possess, directly or indirectly, the
power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of XRP 11, through ownership of
voting securities, by contract, subscription agreement, or otherwise.
107. The Control Person Defendants also have the power to direct or cause the direction of the
management and policies of Ripple Labs.
Case 3:18-61 4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/: Page 23 of 35
108. The Control Person. Defendants, separately or together, have sufﬁcient inﬂuence to have
caused XRP II and/or Ripple Labs to submit a registration statement.
109. The Control Person Defendants, separately or together, jointly participated in Ripple
Labs’ and/or XRP II’s failure to register XRP.
110. By virtue of the conduct alleged herein, the Control Person Defendants are liable for the
wrongﬁll conduct complained of herein and are liable to Plaintiff and the Class for rescission and/or
KOOONONU‘IA
10 A. Declaring this action to be a prOper class action and certifying Plaintiff as Class
11 representative;
12 B. Declaring that Defendants offered and sold unregistered securities in violation of
13 Sections 5(a), 12(a), and 1.5 of the Securities Act;
14 C. Awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the Class rescission of their XRP purchases;
15 D. Awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the Class compensatory damages;
16 E. Awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the Class pre—judgment and post—judgment
17 interest, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, and other costs and disbursements;
18 F. Requiring an accounting of all remaining assets and funds raised by Defendants through
19 the sale of XRP;
2o G. Imposing a constructive trust over the assets and funds raised by Defendants through the
21 sale of XRP;
22 H. Enj oining and restraining Defendants from violating the securities laws through the
23 continued unregistered sale of XRP; and
Case 318-1 4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/ - Page 24 of 35
In; AwardingiPlaintifﬁand the~other:members~of the Clefss Such other‘and .furthe‘r‘méliet‘ as .the -
C0911 may 119611111151? and 12101291».
DATED? Jilly} 33.20181
a JOHM- «9'1. JASNQC '6 3': 281605)(
600 W. Broadway, Su 6 3300
0°“ Telephone 619~233- 4565
Facsimile: 619— 233-0508
Email: uasnochCaDSGOtt-scott com
SCQTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW L‘LP
THOMAS L. LAUGHLIN, IV (‘Pro Hac. Vice
fQ'rthcqming)
11' RHIANA SWARTZ
The Helmsley' Bu'il'ding
12 230 Park- Ave11ue, 17th F1001
13 Telephone: 212- 223- 6444
Facsimile: 212-223- 633.4
14. Email: tlaughli11@ctt—369ttfcom
‘rsWéi’t‘z@s‘6ott-Sb'ott.'co111
Cdum‘elfof Plaintiff
22‘:
Case 3:184 4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/081 Page'25 of 35
@111150‘1'05
FOR‘ COURT DSE’ ONL‘v
“mm”??? WITHOUT Iﬂ'TORiz-T‘I. (Nﬂmé) Slam Barnumbar, and address)
(3111281605)
600 W. Broad“
nay ,TSuit'
SanDiégo, CA 92101
6 1 9423314565 TELEPHONE NO;
FAXNo; 61-9
233— 0.508
. “ATTORNEYF‘OR(Namelr'.P1alntlffA tier. Green'wald”
JUL 0 3 2018
:cirv min 119 ‘oopE: RedWooﬂ"
301101611]; .. H -
‘ CASENAME:
_Grccnwald v. Ripple Labs, Inc
-C1V|L CASE 60E? SHEET
( Amou‘n
exceeds $25.000)_
demanded lS
$25 0.00 or iess) ..
((1 "1.0.1410
..(Cai.. Rules of Cbuﬂ rule '3- 402)‘
Fiieci: with tiIst appearance. by defendant
Complex Case Declgnatlon
1:1 Jo'inder
.iubcE
.. .1511 .
.. DEPT}. . . _ . ﬂMJ
. .. j .ltems 1—6 b'elow must be completed (séé instructions on page 2) . .. ‘ l. ,_._.,
1..“ Check one box below for the case type that best describes this ca'sef
Auto ~Tort Contract Provision‘ally Complex Civil LitigaIIOn -
'Auto (2%" Bré'a'EiiZof contract/warranty (05) (Cal. Rules or com; rule's‘ 3."2400—3 403)
Uninsured motorist (46) 1
Rule 3:740‘cbilectiohs (09) 1:1 Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)
other PIIPDMID (Personal InjuryIProperty 1:1 _ Other collections (09) Construction detect (10)
DamageNi/ronglul Death) Tort insurance coverage‘(18) 1:1. Mass tort (40)
.. :Asbestos (04)
. Product liability (24)
. Q Other contract (3.7)
Real .Property
~— ‘. Medic‘ai malpraciiCé ("45’ Eminentdornainlinverse
, Insurance coverage claims arising from the‘
Other PIIPDNVD (23) 1.-. L; condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case
Ion .Wrongful eviction (33) IYPQS (41)
Non .EI/P‘oioomer) . _
;' Business tort/unfair business practice (OZ) [:12 'Other real.property;(26) Enforcement of Judgment
3. Civil rights.(08) Unlawful Detainer 1:1 Enlorcement ofjudgment (20.)
Commercial (3.1)
Jﬂi—iﬂﬂﬂﬂi‘i
. Daiamaiion-(13)
.Residentiai(.32)
1:1 R106 (27')
. ,. Other cqmmaintrnotspeciﬁed agave) (42)
Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
.Other nongPllPDlWD tort (3.5)
Empioyment .- ,Asséi forfeitii'é (O5)
Petition re arbitration award (11)
Partnership and coiporate gbvernan‘ce (21)
Other petition {not speciﬁed above) (43)
.-: Wrongfiii termination (36)
Other employment (1. 5) .H. .
1:1: Writ of Inandate (02)
_....0ther iudiciai review (39)
This. case 111 Is
Large number._ of separately represented parties 6.
is n'o't
complex under rule 3. 400 .of- the. California Rules of Court. if the case. is complex Inarir; the
c. - Extensive motion practice raising difﬁcult or noyel
issues that will be time-consuming to. resolve
e..1Q Coordination with related actions pending in oneior more codrts.
in other counties; states, or countries; or in a federal court
c. [:1 punitive
5.11.915”
Number causes of action (specify): There are two: 15 U. S. C. sections 771 and 77 O
. This case is is not a class ac'ion suit
.ii th'ere' are any k‘noWn related case's. tile and serve a notice: .of related .ca.‘se (Yo
D:ate Ju1y3, 2018
JohnT. Jasnoch _
. .. . —:
. ‘3] 3‘4. 1“ Ii. ’ " '
iU-‘A'REOR PRININAIIE) SiGtiv‘tTUREQFT/ﬁﬂ'r‘i 0R ATTORNEYFOR PARm-
‘-”~
0 Plaintiff must tile this cgver sheet: with the ﬁrst paperiﬁle'd'In the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under: the PIobate Code; Family Code. or Welfare' and institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court rule 3 22.0. ) Failure to ﬁle may result
° File this cover sheet In addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
0 if this case is- complex.under rule 3. 400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court. yoii must serve .a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to‘ the action or proceeding.
Form Adapted for Mandatory Use Cal Rules at Court (0133 2 so. a 220, 3. 400-3 .403. 3.740.”
Jurﬁciai Council at caliromla
CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET Cal Standards 01 Jud |~181 Administration. std. ’:3 to
CM 0101Rev,_.luly 1. .2007] www. cauriinfq ca gov
Case 3:184", 4790 Document 1-1 Filed 08/08/1 _ Page 26 of 35
C M :0 10
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO'CQMPLETE‘THE COVER SHEET
To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. if you are tiling a- ﬁrst paper (for example. a complaint) in a: civil case. you must
ﬁrst paper the Civil Case C
coI1I1piIete and ﬁle, along with your.I Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be- used to compile
statistics about the types and numbers of cases ﬁled. You must complete items 1 throtigh IS on the sheet IIII1"I’ Iern 1. ou must check
one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case ﬁts both a general and a more speciﬁc type of case iiIsIted'In item 1.
check the more specific one. if the case has multiple causes of action. check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action
To assist you in completing the sheet. examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below A cover
sheet must be ﬁled only with yI‘S‘ur initial paper Fa. hire to file, a cover sheet with the tirst paperi led in a civil case may subject a paIty.
its counsel or both to sanctions under rulest2.I30 and 3 220 of the California Rules of Court.
To Parties in Rule 3.- 'iI‘4IO CollectIons Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3. 740 is deﬁned as an action for recovery of money
Which property. services or money was acquired on credit A collectIons aseI IcIioes t
include an action seeking the following: (1 ) .tort
damages (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, _(4)' recovery of personal property. or (5) a prejudgment writ Qf
attachment. The identiﬁcation of a case as a rulej~314Q collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the generai'
tiIné-foI'I—service reqmrements and case management rules. unless a defendant fies a responsive pleading A rule 3.7.40 collections
case Will be subject to the reqUIrements for. service and obtaining a jud'gr'nent'In rule 3. 740,.
To Parties in Complex Cases. in complex cases- only. parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the
case is compIex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 340.0 of the California Rules of Court this must be indicated by
completing the appropriate boxes In items :1. a d 2. if a plaintiff designates a case as complex; the cover sheet must be served with the
complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant InIayI file and 'see no later than the time" of its ﬁrst appearance ‘a jolnder in the
plaintiff‘s designation a counter—designation that the case is not complex. or. if the plaintiff has made no designation. a designatIon that
the ease is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
AutoI'Ii'ort I I
contract“
Auto (22)—PeIsonal injury/Property Breach of Contractarrant‘y (06)
DamageIWIOIngful Death Breach of Rental/Lanes Antitrust/Trade Regulatic’m (03)
Contract {not unlawful detainer Construction Defect (III 0)
Uninsured Motorist (_46) (If: the
or Wrongful eviction) Claims involving Mass Tort (4Q)
case, involves an uninsured
mbton'st claim IsIubjeIISt to Cpntractmtarranty‘ BIeachLSelier Securities Litigation (28)
arbitration, check this item .Pla‘intiffIno't fraud or negligence) Environmental/Toxic "(ch (30)
instead of Auto) Negligent Breach. etconttact/ insurance Coverage Claims
other PllPDIWD (Personal inq'yI. Warranty (arising from provisionally complex
Other Breach of Connect/Warranty case type listed above) (41)
Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Enforcement of Judgment
Tort Collections (22 9.. money owed. open
book accounts) (09) Enforcement of Judgment (20)
Coiledion'. CascLSeiler Plaintiff ‘Abstract of Judgment (Out of
‘Asbestos Property Damage
Other Pr'orhissory Note/Collections Count 3/)
Asbestos Personal Iiniuiyl
Casé Confession of Judgment (non-
Wrongful Death_ .
insurance Coverage (notprcvisiona/Iy domestic Irelatid'n‘s)
Product Liability (n‘ot asbestcs or
complex) (I 8) Sister SItate Judgment
Medical Malpractice (‘45) AiIIo Subrogation Administrative Agency Aviard
Medical Malpraqtic'é— Other Coverage (not unpaid taxes) .
other Contagion- PetItIonlCertIf cation "of Entry of
Physicians 8. SuIIIgeons
Other Professional Health Care ContracttIai Fraud IIludgnIIenIt on Unpaid Taxes
Malpractice Other Contract Dispute Olheém Enforcement of Judgment
Other PIIPDNVD (23) Real Property
Premises Liability (6.9:. slip Eminent Domain/inverse Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
Condemnation (14) RICO (27)
Wrongful Eviction (3:?) Other Complaint (not speciﬁed
intentional Bodily injury/PD/WD above) (42)I
(e. g. assault vandalism) Other Real Property (e.g.. quiet title) (26) Declaratory Relief Oniy
intentional lniiiction of Writ of Possession of Real Property“ injunctive Relief Only (non-
Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure harassment)
Negligent Infliction of Quiet Title _
Emotional Distress Other Reai Property (no! eminent Other Commercial Complaint
Other PilPD/WD domain, landlord/tenant, or
Non- PIIPDIWD (other) Tort foreclosure) caseI(non— tort/non-complex)
Practice (07)I Commermal (31) Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Civil Rights (e. g.‘. discrimination.
‘ Residential (32) Partnership and Corporate
false arrest) (not‘c‘ivil DIugs (38) (if the case Involves illegal Governance (21)
harassmentiioai drugs. check. this item; otherwise Other Petition‘ (not specified
Defamation (8.9:. sIend‘e'r. libel) '
report. as Cémrheidlal'or Residential) above) (43)
(13) Judicial Review Civil HaIassmIenIt
Fraud (16) Asset Forfeiture (05) WorIkplace Violence
Intellectual Property (1.9); Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Eider/Dependent Adult
Professional Negligence (25) Writ of Mandate (02) Ab‘use
Legal Malpractice Writ—Administrative Mandamus Election Contest
other Professional Malpractice Writ—Mandamus on Limited Court- Petition for Name Change
(not medical or legal) Case Matter Petition forI Relief From Late
Oth‘eI Non-PIIPD/WD Tort (35) Writ—Other Limited Cotirt Case Claim
Employment Review Other Civil. Petition
Wrongful Termination (36) Other Judicial Review (39)
Other Employment (15) Review of_ Health Ofﬁcer Cider
Notice of Appeal—Labor
.1 _ Commissioner Appeals. ..... .._. - -
'CM-mo iR'éVJJuly 20071 Page 2012
CIv‘IL CASE COVER SHEET
Case 3:18—c' . 4790 Document 1-1 Filed 08/08/1 , Page 27 of 35
. .. WW... . ....... . . ._-. SOME-'56?
SUMMONS Imaraaasrrram
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT-:-
(A viso AL DEMANDADO):
SAEMETEEJ0 COUNTY
AVNER GREENWALD,_Ir‘IdiVidu'ally and on BehalfofAll Others
JUL 0 3 20l8
you ARE BEING supp BY‘ PLAINTIFF:-
(LO ESTA DEM'ANDA‘NDO EL DEMANDAN TE):
RIPPLE LABS, l_NC., a Delaware corporation, XRP _II, LLC, a South
Carolina Limited Liability Company, BRADLEY GARLINGHOUSE,
.. r. -_..44 um.“ .. .......t.t_. .. v,
NOTICE! Yo'u have been sued: The court may decide against you WIthout your being heard unless you respond within 30 dais. Read the‘ information
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to fie a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you‘. Your written response must be'In proper legal form if you want the coUrt to hear your
case. There may be a court forrii that you can use for your response. Yo‘u can ﬁnd these cou'rt forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self——Help Ceriter (www. courtinfo. ea. gov/sellhelp) your county law library. or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the ﬁling fee. ask
There are other legal requirements You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. if you cannot afford an attorney. you may be' eligible for free legal services from a nonproﬁt. legal services program. You can locate
thé's'é nonprof t groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www. lawhelpcaliforniaorg)‘. the California Courts Online Seif- H-elp Center
. 3% (www._courtir'rfo ca. gov/s‘elfhelp);. or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE. The court has a_ statutory lieri for Waived fees and
costs on any settlement or" arbitration award of $10 000 or more in a civil case. The court‘s lie'h must be paid before the court will dismiss the case
. IAVISOI Lo han demandado; Si no responde denim de 30 dies. Ia corte pueda decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versién. Lea Ia lhfomracion a
confinuacion.
Tiene 3D DIAS DE CALENDAR/O desp'ués de que la en'Ir'eguen esIa citacion y papa/es legales para pres'eritar _una respuesta pbr escrito en e‘sta
en formatb legal correclo si desea 'que procesen su case en -la cone, Es posible que ha ya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su Icspuesta.
Pue‘de énc’onlr'a'r esIos forirIu/arios de' la cori‘e y mas iniormécldn en el Centre de Ayuda de ‘Ias Cortes de California (www,sucorte ca.gov), en la
, biblioteca de [eyes de su condado 0 en la cprie que la quede _mé_s cerca. Si. rip puede pager Ia cuota de presentacién, pida aI sec‘retariq de la cane
. que la dé un formiI/ario de exencion de page dé cuotas. Si no presents su respuesta a fiehipo, puede perder el caso porincumplimienio y la corte le
padré quiiar su sue/do, dinero y_bienes sin mas advenencia.
Hay otrbs requisites legales. Es recomehdable qLie llama a un abogado inmedietamenfe. Si no conoce a un abogado, pilede Ilamar a un servicio de
remis‘ion a abogados. Si no p‘uede pagara un abogado. es .posiole que cumpla con [95 requisitos para optener seryicios Iegales gratuifos de un l
colegio de abogados locales: AIVISO: For Iey, la code fierIe derecho a reclamar [as cuofas y [as costps exenios porimponer. up gra vanien sqbre
cualquler recuperacién de 510, 000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante [In acuerdd o una concesicin de arbitraje en un caso de derecho' civil. Tiene que
a». ANI
D31 (0
{Nu/nets da'
2190 County Center, Redwood City, CA“94063 . _._. a
exname address andtetephone numberxof l at attorney, or piamufhwuhout an attorney. is ' ' '
(Elnombre‘la direéoién‘ ‘I/eiznumer'o' d té‘léfonod abodado déldém claan -’ i .
lJohtiJ‘ J'Isnoch 600 W Broadwav Suite 3300;. Sén Dieab‘Z- CA 92101-619 233'— 4565/???
3:22;)
out ia 2018;
RQDINPI M CATALANO fslgrcigetggﬁo)
-f-iISJ-‘intia
(For proof of se'riIice' 'of this 'sumITIOIi's, use Piopf 'of Service of Summons (form PO—S 010).) V'
c'itatién use 9/ formulario Proof of Service of Summons (P08- 01 ).
.(Para prueba de entrega de esta '
. "ill;_:[:l as- an individual defendant
2. E]
as the person sued under the ﬁctitious name of (specify)?
3. on behalf of (specify): iii
under: CZ] cop 11.6 Io‘icorporation) [:3 GOP 416,;60 (minor)
.5: GOP 41 6. 20 (defunct corporation) [:1 GOP 416.70 (conservatée)
[:l CCP 416 40 (association or partnership) 1:] GOP 416. 90 (authorized person)
[:1 other (specify):
4. [:1 by personal delivery on (date):
aiggrln'r‘j'i
_ _ .. ~ _
Form Adopted tor Mandatory Use SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedu. e §§ 412.. 20, 465
Judicial Council of Calliornia . wow._courII'II!cu:a, gov
SUM—100 IRev. J ﬂy 1. 2009;
Case 3:18—61 ,4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/: Page 28 of 35
.. . . .. . SUM-200m)-
-. caster:
snow TITLEE-
Iv- Greenwaid v. Ripple t§,=1‘r‘ib._,- ét‘al.. jg C:
I V 03 ‘4: 6 l
”V .. .:-.---r------ . -.. .. -
. »v .. u. . —. .I ' '-
+ This form may be us‘e‘d as an attachment to any summons if spape' does not permit the listing of. all parties on the summons.
+’ If- this attachment Is--us_ed, insert the foliowma statement'In the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons. “Additional Parties
Attachment form'is attached."
List additional parties (Choc/«only one box. Use a separate page for each type of part»):
. [:1 Plaintiff _
Qefengant _- Cross-ComplaInant
“I: Cross-Defendant
DefiaIldaﬁ’ésii
m-.- , -_... . . .. . -. ,v ..
...-...............~ .. . ....w._- ._ W . - 5...... . haunt“;
. F- ...
I. '..~'-»_--~--1.-_———- '.X.I..~..—.~.~—~~~u..:-:u—..~«“WW-2"?“ .. w- ‘
-A-d——
Idf M'
d ‘ U . ’
°§§dmfgwfgwfgaiggﬁﬁi ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT
SUM-409W [Rev January '1: 2007) Attachmentto Summons
Case 3218-: 4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/: Page 29 of35
; Attorney or Party without Attorney (Name/Address) FOR GOUR’I‘ USE ONLY:
John T. Jasnoch (281605)
SCOTT+SQOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600W. Broadway. Siiii‘e 33b0
$22210 213:1:
Attorney for: Plaintiff . _
. . . . .. . .1
SAN MATEO COUNTY . :
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ,
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO. ‘1
JUL 0 3 201
REDWOOD C1TY',ICA 94063
AVNER QRiEENyl/ALD
RlPPLE_LABS,lNC.etal,1
:. ..1 mm,“ ...;..1 L._ ~.:.-.-.... .. ~.-__H:.;._a... L-HH-H
This certificate must be completed and filed with your Civil case Cover Sheet if 1121
you have checked. a Complex Case d‘QSignation‘or CounteraDeSignation KW]
£1; Iii the attached Cix‘l‘il case-Cover Sheet, this 'case is being designated encounter-designated
::asa comolex case.;[or as not a complex oase].because at least one or more of‘the following-
1561263 has bbéii‘cliéékédi
\ Box1 — Case type that 1's best described as being [or not being] provisiOnally
complex civil litigation (i. e., antitrust or trade regulation claims, construction
defect claims involving many parties or structures, securities claiins or investment
lbs'ses. mvoivmg many parties, environmental or toxic tort claims involving many
parties, claims involving mass torts, or insurance coverage claims arising out of
any of the foregoing claims).
61 Box ef
Compléi‘ for. hot complex] due to factors requiring exceptional judicial
Ci d5 1—. IS [bfiS net] ’21 class adtiofl: suit.
(2)_ complexity of ant1cipated factual and/or legal issues; (3) numerous pretrial motions
that- will be dine-consuming to resolve; (4) management of a large number of Witnesses or
a SubStantial amount of documentary evidence; (5) coordination with related actions
(EV-59 [Rev l/OB] l: www.5anmateocourt.org
Case 3:18-11 _ 4790 Document 1—1_ Filed 08/08/3‘ .nPage $0 of 35
pending in one or more courts in other counties, states or countries or in a federal court;
(6) whether or not certiﬁcation of a putative class action will 1n fact be pursued; and (7)
substantial post—judgment judicial supervision];
(1), (2). (3), (4) and (6). this"IS a securities class action under the Securities Act of 1933 that
charges a company and certain of its ofﬁcers and directors with unregistered sale of
securities to investors in violation ofithe Securities Act. Defendants will obtain separate
counsel. and Will be a large number of witnesses and substantlal amount of~
r< .--....1 _. ... ......_-...... ..—:1. - 1'1 ... ...- _.-.... .. ...‘.__
documentary evidence. Plaintiff will seek class certiﬁcation
.(qi‘ta'éh additional pages ifr'zeCessaiyz
3... Based on the above—stated supporting information, there: IS a reasonable basis for the complex
case designation. or counter—designation [on noncomplex- case counter—designation] being made
in the attached Civil Case Cover Sheet;
93:, *_**,*
I, the undersigned counsel or~sei‘f+represented party, hereby certify that the above is true and correct
aiid‘th‘eit I make this certiﬁcation subject to the applicable ‘p‘i‘oVi‘sio‘ns Of California Code ofGivil
Procedure,.'Section 128.7-:and/or California Rules o'fProfesSiémal Conduct,_Rulc=S.-.200 (BD-and‘ San
Mateo County.Superior‘Gourto'cal.Rules, Local Rule 2.30.
Dated: 07/93/18
Jeh'n T. Jasmch
[Type QIPnintNams]
CV-59 [Rev. 1/06] www.5anmate'ocourt.org
/ Case 3:18-c’ ‘4‘796 ’Document 1-1 Filed "0"8/0‘8/:
”W WW tweet) 1w-ioa'4.6a‘i:_..
a SAN MATEOP‘PPNTY
“ NOV. 0 1 2038.
[ff/7ft L425, fVLC- 4H?" lifilUlg03 2018 Date:
\--\‘7‘ '
r‘iQIBi'k
ot‘r
horcotﬂime 91003m-
" - .- ~
. 92 f --on Tuesday &Thursday
\_——
——on Wednesday & Friday
You are hereby given nULiLu-Of your Case
Management Conference. ihe date, time and department have been written above
1. in accordance with applicable California Rules ofthe Court and local Rules 2.3(d)1—4 and 2.3(m), you are hereby ordered
3). EerieeLriemeddefemieotsehd file ereefs__etserVIc.e_on those defendants with the court within 60=days of filing
the complaint (CRC 201.7).
Serve a copy of this notice, Case Management Statement and ADR information Sheet on all named parties in this‘
c) File and servea completed Case Management Statement at least 15—days before the Case Management
Conference [CRC 212(g)]. Failure to do so may result in monetary sanctions.
Meet andcgnfer', in person or by telephone, to consider each ofthe issues identified in CRC 212(f) no later than
30~days before the date set for the Case Management Conference.
-if you fail to follow the orders above, you are ordered to show cause why you should not be sanctioned. The Order
to Show Cause hearing Will be at the same time as the Case Management Conference hearing. Sanctions may
include monetary, evid entiary or issue sanctions as well as striking pleadings and/or dismissal.
Continuances of Case Management Conferences are highly disfavored unless good cause is shown
Parties may proceed-to an appropriatedispute resolution process (”ADR”) by ﬁling a Stipulation to ADR and Proposed
Order (see attached form). if plaintiff files a Stipulation to ADR and Proposed Order electing to proceed to judicial
arbitration, the Case Management Conference will be taken off the court calendar and the case will be referred to the
Arbitration Administrator. if plaintiffs and defendants ﬁle a completed stipulation to another ADR process (e g ,
mediation) lO—days prior to the first scheduled Case Management Conference, the Case Management Conference will be
continued for 90—~days to allow parties time to complete their ADR session. The court will notify parties of their new Case
Management Conference date.
if you have filed a default or a judgment has been entered, your case is not automatically taken off Case Management
Conference Calendar. lf”Does”, ”Roes,” etc. are named in your complaint, they must be dismissed in order to close the
case. lfany party is in bankruptcy, the case is stayed only as to that named party.
You are further ordered to appear in person* (or through your attorney of record) at the‘Case Management Conference
noticed above. You must be thoroughly familiar with the case and fully authorized to proceed.
The Case Managementjudge will issue orders at the conclusion ofthe conference that may include:
a) Referring'parties to voluntary ADR and setting an ADR completion date;
b) Dismissing or severing claims or’parties;
c) Settingtrial date.
8. The Case Managementjudge may be the trial judge in this case.
For further information regarding case management policies and procedures, see the court’s website at: www.sanmateocourt.org
. 'Te/ephonic appearances at case management conferences are available by contacting CourtCa/I, LLC, an independent vendor, or leasrﬁve business days prior
to the scheduled conference {seeattached CaurtCall information).
Case 3218—6 _4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/: Page 32 of35
ERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
(650) 261—5100
www.5anmateocourt.org
/ y”
AVNER GREENWALD Notice of Complex Case Status Conference
Case No.: 18—ClV—03461 Date: 9/5/2018
RIPPLE LABS, lNC., Dept. p1
Title: AVNER GREENWALD VS. RIPPLE LABS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL
.A«»\
You are hereby given notice of your Complex Case Status Conference. The date, time and department have been
written above. At this conference, the Presiding Judge will decide whether this action is a complex case within the
meaning of California Rules Court (”CRC”), Rule 3.400, subdivision (a) and whether it should be assigned to a single
judge for all purposes.
1. In accordance with applicable San Mateo County Local Rule 2.30, you are hereby ordered to:
a. Serve copies of this notice, your Civil Case Cover Sheet, and your Certificate Re: Complex Case Designation
on all named parties in this action no later than service of your first appearance pleadings.
b. Give reason notice of the Complex Case Status Conference to all named parties in this action, even if they
have not yet made a first appearance or been formally served with the documents listed in subdivision (a).
Such notice shall be given in the same manner as required for an ex parte application pursuant to CRC
3.1203.
2. if you fail to follow the orders above, you
are ordered to show cause why you should not be sanctioned. The ,
Order to Show Cause hearing will be at the same time as the Complex Cause Status Conference. Sanctions
may include monetary, evidentiary or issue sanctions as well as striking pleadings and/or dismissal.
3. An action is provisionally complex case if it involves one or more of the following types of claims: (1) antitrust
or trade regulation claims; (2) construction defect claims involving many parties or structures; (3) securities
claims or investment losses involving many parties; (4) environmental or toxic tort claims involving many
parties; (5) claims involving massive torts; (6) claims involving class actions; or (7) insurance coverage claims
arising out of any of the claims listed in subdivisions (1) through (6). The Court shall treat a provisionally
complex action as a complex case until the Presiding Judge has the opportunities to decide whether the action
meets the definition in CRC 3.400(3).
4. Any party who files either a Civil Case Cover Sheet (pursuant to CRC 3.401) or counter orjoinder Civil Case Cover
Sheet (pursuant to CRC 3.402, subdivision (b) or (C)), designating an action as a complex case in Items 1,2 and/or
5, must also file an accompanying Certificate Re: Complex Case Designation in the form prescribed by the Court.
The certificate must include supporting information showing a reasonable basis for the complex case
designation being sought. Such supporting information may include, without limitation, a brief description of
the following factors as they pertain to the particular action: (1) management of a large number of separately
represented parties; (2) complexity of anticipated factual and/or legal issues’ (3) numerous pretrial motions that
will be time-consuming to resolve; (4) management ofa large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of
documentary evidence; (5) coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties,
states or countries or in a federal court; (6) whether or not certification of a putative class action will in fact be
pursued; and (7) substantial post-judgmentjudicial supervision.
Rev. Jun. 2016
Case 3:18—(y , 4790 Document 1-1 Filed 08/08/1‘ 'Page 33 of 35
For further information regarding case management policies and procedures, see the court website at
* Telephone appearances at Complex Case Status Conference are available by contacting CourtCall, LLC,'and
independent vendor, at least 5 business days prior to the scheduled conference.
hereby certify that‘l am the clerk of this court, not a party of this cause; that I served a copy of this notice on the below
date, by placing a copy thereof in separate sealed envelopes addressed to the address shown by the records of this court
as set forth above, and by then sealing said envelopes and depositing same, with postage fully pre—paid thereon, in the
United States Mall at Red wood City, California.
Date: 7/5/2018 Rodina M. Catalano,
Court Executive Officer/Cl
Antonio Geronimo,
JOHN TJASNOCH
'600 W BROADWAY STE 3300
Case 3:18—c- 4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/:. Page 34 of 35
CORRECTED I .,.. .. sunIL-Ioo
suuiiious dependents.
(CITACION JUDICIAL) .
NOTICE TO DEFENo‘ANT:
(AV'Iso AL DEMANpApO):
F E El E B
RIPPLE LABS, ]NC., a Delaware corporation, XRP II, LLC, a South~
Carolina Limited Liability Company, BRADLEY GARLINGHOUSE, JUL 06 2018
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Sun rior Court
AVNER GREENWALD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Silﬂilarly Situated
' NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 day ead the information 31
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone caIl will not protect you: Your written. response must be in proper legal form if you nan the court to hear your _
case, ,There may be a court forrn that you can ‘usé for your response. You can 1' nd these court' forms and more information atthe California Courts
Online Self--Help Center (www oourtinfo.pe.gov/selﬂ1el_d), your county latii llbrary, or the couithouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the ﬁling fee. ask
the court clerk for a fée waiver' form. If you do ﬁle your response on time, you may lose the case by default, =and-your wages. money, and property
“ may be taken withotit further warning from t “not rt.
There are other legal requlrements -.Yq t to {:all an attorney right eway. If you do: not know an attorney, you may wa'nt to call an attorney
referral service :Ifyq'u cannot afford an ”attorney, yo may be eIigi .. . -
‘ these nonproﬁt groups at me California Legal Services Web Site (www ,ory); .. _
(www. courﬂnfo. ca. g'ov/seiﬂielp). or by oontaéting your local coin} or co y_ bar association. NOTE:
The court has a Statutoiy lien for waived féiés. and
on any settlement or arbitration award of $10. 000 or more in a cIyIIpasé The court's lien must be. paid before the court will dismiss the ease.-
‘: IA Visa! Lo han demaridado. Si no respondei denim
do 30 dies, Ia c'orte pu'ede decidir en su contra sin eseIIchar‘ su: version; Lea Ia Infonnacidn a
continuacidn.
Tene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después 'de que Ie entreguen esta. citacion ypapeles [ego/es para presenIar one respuesta por escrito en esta .
aorta y haoer que se entregue una sepia. a] demandanIe. Uha cane 6 one Ilarnoda Ielefdnl roIegenl'.‘ Si; Ie'sp Ia po‘r escn'to Iieno que esiar
on foniiata legal co‘rrecto 51 doses q'ue proce‘sén 5.". case en la cone“ Es posIbla que hays q rpara' su respuesta.
Puede enoonIrar esIos fonniIIan'os de Ia ‘corte y 'riform’acion enie entro de Ayuda de'las Q as do CaIifo ),
biioIéca de Jaye; de su condado e en la cone qe 1e quedé: rn'as pliede pager/s ciIoIa do prosenlacrd ‘5!
do secretario dé Ia carté _.
qua Ia do uh fonnulan'o do exencion de page do cuotas Si. no pieseriI . . spiréslé a tiempo, puede p'order a! case po‘rlricurhplir'niénto yIa cartels iii
.podra quitar su sue'Ido, dinem y bienas sin mas advertencla;.
Hay oIros requisites IegaIes. Es recomendabie que_ [Iaine'a un abogadp irimediatarherito‘. SI' no (:0a 3 oh abo‘gado pue'de ”enter a tin serylcio do
3 remisién a abogados. Si no puede pager a un anogado, es pdsltllé qua pump/a con los requisites para obtener servicros Iegel'es gratuitos de un
programa de serviclos legales sin ﬁnes de Juan. Puedé encontrar estos gnrpos sin I‘nos de Iucro en el sitio web de Ce'lifomia Legal Services,
{\Ilrww. lawhelpcalifomia. org). en 9/ Contra do Ayuda do Ias Cortes de California, (www. sucorte. ca. gov) o ponléndose' en contacto con la code o 91
cpleglo do abag‘ados locales. AVISQ: Par Iey, Ia code Ilene derecho a reciamarlas cuotas ylos cosIos exentos porimpoher un giavamen sabre
cuslquier rocuperacién do $10, 000 d més do valor recibida rhediante un acuerdo 0 one oonoesr'dn do arbitraje en un caso de dereoho civ'iI. Tiene que
pager e! gravaInen de la cope antes de que Ia code pueda desechar- 9'! case.
._-.-: ' .........
The name and address of the court Is: CASE NUMBER:
{Mimero del Cass}:
Mateo Silperior Court
{El nombrs y direccién de la corIe es): San .__
400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063“ ISCNOBLIM
The-name. address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney. or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(El hombre. la direccion y el mimero de Ieléfono deI abogado do! demandante, o deidemandente que-no tiene abogado. es)?
John T.-Jasnoch, 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300, San Diego, CA 92101, 619—233-456
oA'T'E': by Clark
RODINAM. CATALANO
“(Fechar [JUL 9 6 2-018 (Secretanojmr ,3 .. ﬂ 11.1.... _
'(AcIiunto)
‘(Forproof of sen/Ice of the Summons, use Erect of Service of §urnmons form POS—O10)9/
citation use eI formulano Proof of Service of Summons (PCS-01 )
(Para pnIéba de 'ehIrega“de esta
NOTICE TO THE PERSON _SERVED- You are served
2,: E
7-” as the person sued under the ﬁctitious name of (specify);
3. l: on behalf of (specimﬁ
l:l --
cop 416.10 (corporation)
CCP 416. 20 (defunct corporation)
CCP 416. 40 (association or partnership)
CCP 41660 (minor)
CCP 41 6.70 (conservatee)
CCP 416. 90 (authorized person)
1:]: other (speedy)
,, .. ._. . .. . . ._. 4
E] by personal delivery on (date). .. .. .. . . Pag’eetpii
Form Adopted tor Mandatory Use
SUMMONS CodedClVI'1 Pro sad
'ciel Couneﬂ at California myggﬂfgggg
SUM-100 [ReLJuly 1. 2009]
Case 3218—0 4790 Document 1—1 Filed 08/08/: Page 35 of 35
_ SUMQQDIMI‘
I .u‘\' "nu" ‘4"; i.‘ :"\:~~::\-“. . .‘ Th 1 1': :““.‘1
EAL'éFJUMpEIiEI
SHORT TITLE: ~
_Grccnwald v. Ripple Labs, Inc., et a1
a . .:'.:::.:-1 I='~
iIIlSTRUCTIQNS FOR USE
+ This form may be used as an attachment to any summo'ns if space do‘es not peI'mit the listing of all parties on the summons.
+ if this atiachment'Is .used, insert Ihe following statemént lrj the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: "Additional Parties
Attachment form'Is ggfa'ched.
"1“ ‘
"Lls‘t additional parties (Gh'éck only one box. use: E‘eiforeach typ‘é of part‘)?
Piqintifﬂ Hi Déifendant E] Cross-Compiamant 1:] Cross-Defendant
CHRIS FIJRN LARSEN, RON WILL, ANTOINETTE O’GORMAN, ERIC VAN MILTENBURG SUSAN
ATHEY ZOR' CRUZ,- KEN KURSON, RRN LAWSKY ANJA' MANUEL and TAKASHI OKITA
. Eunlb 1 M}
FoIm Aucpiod ior Mandalary‘Usé
‘ " ‘
Jummmwcamm A'ISDI‘I‘IONALWI‘RTIESTATTACHME'NT‘
SUM-20am) [RI-Iv. January 1. 2007] Attachment igsIImmpns
Documents Similar To Greenwald v Ripple 8/8/18 Removal to Fed Crt
julio77pijo
Flourry Mathunny George