You are on page 1of 31

Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 3

1 PETER B. MORRISON (SBN 230148)
peter.morrison@skadden.com
2 VIRGINIA F. MILSTEAD (SBN 234578)
virginia.milstead@skadden.com
3 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
4 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 687-5000
5 Facsimile: (213) 687-5600

6 JOHN NEUKOM (SBN 275887)
john.neukom@skadden.com
7 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 1400
8 Palo Alto, California 94301
Telephone: (650) 470-4500
9 Facsimile: (650) 470-4570
10 Attorney for Defendants
Ripple Labs Inc., XRP II, LLC, and Bradley
11 Garlinghouse

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
)
15 RYAN COFFEY, individually and on behalf of ) CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-03286-PJH
all others similarly situated, )
16 ) (1) DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
Plaintiff, ) MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
17 ) CASES SHOULD BE RELATED;
v. )
18 ) (2) DECLARATION OF VIRGINIA F.
RIPPLE LABS INC., et al., ) MILSTEAD (filed under separate cover);
19 ) and
Defendants. )
20 ) (3) [PROPOSED] ORDER (lodged under
) separate cover).
21 )
)
22

23

24

25

26
27

28

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 18-cv-03286-PJH
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23 Filed 08/09/18 Page 2 of 3

1 A related case Avner Greenwald v. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-04790-SK, was filed
2 on July 3, 2018, in the Superior Court for the County of San Mateo, California (the “Greenwald

3 Action”) and removed to this Court on August 8, 2018. Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-

4 11, Defendants Ripple Labs Inc., XRP II, LLC, and Bradley Garlinghouse (collectively

5 “Defendants”) respectfully move the Court to issue an administrative order designating the

6 Greenwald Action as related to the above-captioned action (the “Coffey Action”).

7 I. APPLICABLE STANDARD UNDER CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12
8 “An action is related to another when (1) The actions concern substantially the same
9 parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly
10 burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted

11 before different Judges.” Civil L. R. 3-12(a).

12 Whenever a party knows or learns that an action filed in or removed to this district may be
13 related to an action which is or was pending in this district, that party “must promptly file in the

14 lowest-numbered case an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related,

15 pursuant to Civil L. R. 7-11.” Civil L. R. 3-12(b). That motion must include: “(1) The title and

16 case number of each apparently related case; (2) A brief statement of the relationship of the actions

17 according to criteria set forth in 3-12(a).” Civil L. R. 3-12(d).

18 II. THE GREENWALD ACTION IS RELATED TO THE COFFEY ACTION
19 The Greenwald Action is related to the Coffey Action. In the instant action, Plaintiff
20 Coffey asserts violations of §§ 5, 12(a)(1), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities

21 Act”) and §§ 25110, 25503, and 25504 of the California Corporations Code against Defendants

22 Ripple Labs Inc., XRP II, LLC, and Bradley Garlinghouse. The Coffey Action is brought on

23 behalf of “[a]ll persons or entities who purchased XRP from January 1, 2013 through the present.”

24 The Greenwald Action likewise asserts violations of §§ 5, 12(a)(1), and 15 of the Securities Act

25 against Defendants Ripple Labs Inc., XRP II, LLC, Bradley Garlinghouse and also officers and

26 directors of Ripple, Christian Larsen, Ron Will, Antoinette O’Gorman, Eric van Miltenburg, Susan
27 Athey, Zoe Cruz, Ken Kurson, Ben Lawsky, Anja Manuel, and Takashi Okita. The Greenwald

28 Action is brought on behalf of “all persons or entities who purchased XRP from July 3, 2015 to the

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 18-cv-03286-PJH
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23 Filed 08/09/18 Page 3 of 3

1 present.” Both Plaintiffs allege that they and members of the purported class purchased the virtual

2 currency, XRP, on “cryptocurrency exchanges” and that they were somehow injured because

3 Defendants were allegedly required to register XRP as a “security” with the Securities & Exchange

4 Commission (“SEC”) but failed to do so.

5 Thus, because of the overlap of parties and claims, the Greenwald Action and the Coffey
6 Action will raise the same evidentiary, factual, and legal issues. For example, both actions will

7 involve the same witnesses and will involve resolving the same legal questions. As such,
8 conducting these cases before different judges would likely result in an unduly burdensome

9 duplication of labor and expense for the parties involved in each action and the Court and could
10 also create the potential for conflicting results.

11 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court designate the
12 Greenwald Action as related to the Coffey Action.

13

14 DATED: August 9, 2018

15 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
16

17 By: /s/Peter B. Morrison
Peter B. Morrison
18 Attorney for Defendants
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
2
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 18-cv-03286-PJH
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 26

1 PETER B. MORRISON (SBN 230148)
peter.morrison@skadden.com
2 VIRGINIA F. MILSTEAD (SBN 234578)
virginia.milstead@skadden.com
3 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
4 Los Angeles, California 90071-3144
Telephone: (213) 687-5000
5 Facsimile: (213) 687-5600
6 JOHN NEUKOM (SBN 275887)
john.neukom@skadden.com
7 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 1400
8 Palo Alto, California 94301
Telephone: (650) 470-4500
9 Facsimile: (650) 470-4570
10 Attorneys for Defendant
Ripple Labs Inc., XRP II, LLC,
11 and Bradley Garlinghouse

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14

15 RYAN COFFEY, individually and on behalf of ) CASE NO.: 18-cv-03286-PJH
all others similarly situated, )
16 ) DECLARATION OF VIRGINIA F.
Plaintiff, ) MILSTEAD IN SUPPORT OF
17 ) DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
v. ) MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
18 ) CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
RIPPLE LABS INC., et al., )
19 )
Defendants. )
20 )
)
21 )
)
22 )
)
23 )
)
24 )
)
25 )
)
26
27

28

DECLARATION OF VIRGINIA F. MILSTEAD ISO DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 2 of 26

1 I, Virginia F. Milstead, do declare as follows:

2 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice before the courts of the State of California and
3 have been admitted to this Court. I am counsel in the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &

4 Flom LLP, which is counsel of record for Defendants Ripple Labs Inc., XRP II, LLC, and Bradley

5 Garlinghouse in the above-captioned matter. The information contained in this declaration is based

6 on my own personal knowledge, and if called upon to do so, could and would testify competently

7 thereto.

8 2. Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, I submit this declaration in support of
9 the accompanying Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related.
10 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Complaint in Avner
11 Greenwald v. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-04790-SK, removed to this Court from San Mateo

12 County Superior Court on August 8, 2018.

13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United
14 States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

15 Executed on August 9, 2018 in Los Angeles, California.
16

17 By: /s/ Virginia F. Milstead
Virginia F. Milstead
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28

DECLARATION OF VIRGINIA F. MILSTEAD ISO DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 3 of 26

Exhibit A
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 4 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 5 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 6 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 7 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 8 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 9 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 10 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 11 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 12 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 13 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 14 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 15 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 16 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 17 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 18 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 19 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 20 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 21 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 22 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 23 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 24 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 25 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 26 of 26
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-2 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
RYAN COFFEY, individually and on behalf of ) CASE NO.: 18-cv-03286-PJH
11 all others similarly situated, )
) [PROPOSED] ORDER DEEMING
12 Plaintiff, ) CASES RELATED
)
13 v. )
)
14 RIPPLE LABS INC., et al., )
)
15 Defendants. )
)
16 )
)
17 )
)
18 )
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER DEEMING CASES RELATED, CASE NO. 18-cv-03286-PJH
Case 4:18-cv-03286-PJH Document 23-2 Filed 08/09/18 Page 2 of 2

1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, Defendants Ripple Labs Inc., XRP II, LLC,
2 and Bradley Garlinghouse filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be

3 Related, requesting that Avner Greenwald v. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-04790-SK (N.D.

4 Cal. Aug. 8, 2018) (the “Greenwald Action”) be designated as related to the above captioned

5 action, Ryan Coffey v. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-03286-PJH (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2018) (the

6 “Coffey Action”).

7 Good cause having been shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Greenwald Action is
8 related to the Coffey Action.

9
10 DATED: ________________, 2018

11
Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
12 United States District Judge
Northern District of California
13

14

15 Respectfully submitted by:

16

17 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

18

19 By: s/ Peter B. Morrison
Peter B. Morrison
20 Attorneys for Defendants

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER DEEMING CASES RELATED, CASE NO. 18-cv-03286-PJH