In the ongoing Ripple lawsuit, California plaintiffs have hit back at John Deaton, who had filed a motion to allow seven non-parties to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendant's opposition to the lead plaintiff motion for class certification.
In their response, the plaintiffs argued that Deaton's proposed brief was procedurally and substantively improper.
The proposed amici, who include Deaton's family members and employees, have nothing unique or relevant to offer and merely rehash the arguments made by the defendants, according to the plaintiffs.
Additionally, Deaton's claims of representing a putative class of 75,890 XRP holders are allegedly false.
"The amici are no friends of the Court. Instead, they are friends and family members of amici's counsel John E. Deatonᅳa self-proclaimed XRP enthusiast and public personality on social media," the plaintiffs state.
Moreover, they claim that Deaton, who is a self-proclaimed XRP enthusiast and public personality on social media, is not a disinterested party and has publicly stated that he is a Ripple who bought shares in the controversial San Francisco-based company in November 2020.The court has been asked to deny the proposed amicus curiae briefs and to determine whether non-parties should be permitted to file amicus curiae briefs in the lawsuit. The court has broad discretion in deciding whether to allow a non-party to participate as an amicus curiae.
As reported by U.Today, Deaton, a prominent XRP community member, submitted a motion file an amicus brief in a long-standing lawsuit against Ripple by an investor, Vladi Zakinov, who argues that the company sold XRP as an unregistered security.
Deaton argues that the court should not certify the class due to disputes among XRP holders: only a small number of XRP holders claim that the token is an unregistered security. The outcome of the Zakinov v. Ripple case could have a significant impact on the future of XRP and the broader cryptocurrency industry.
Arman Shirinyan
