California plaintiffs have retaliated against John Deaton, who filed a motion for allowing seven non-parties to file an amicus curiae brief to support the defendant’s opposition to the lead plaintiff’s motion for sophistication certification.
The plaintiffs argued in their response that Deaton’s proposed temporary was procedurally and substantively improper.
According to the plaintiffs, the proposed amici, who represent Deaton’s family and staff, have nothing unique or related to the offer and rehash the defendants’ arguments.
Furthermore, Deaton’s claims that he represents a putative class of 75,890 XRP holders are alleged to be false.
“The amici are not Courtroom buddies. As a substitute, they are family and friends of amici’s counsel John E. Deaton, a self-proclaimed XRP fanatic and social media personality,” the plaintiffs claim.
Furthermore, they claim that Deaton, a self-proclaimed XRP fan and public figure on social media, is not a disinterested party & has publicly stated that he is a Ripple shareholder who purchased shares in the controversial San Francisco-based firm in November 2020.
The court has been asked to reject the proposed amicus curiae briefs & to determine whether non-parties should be permitted to file amicus briefs in the lawsuit. The court has broad discretion in deciding whether or not to allow a non-party to participate as an amicus curiae.
As reported by U.Immediately, Deaton, a prominent XRP community member, filed an amicus brief in a long-running lawsuit against Ripple by an investor, Vladi Zakinov, who claims that the company sold XRP as an unregistered security.
Deaton contends that the court should not certify the category due to disagreements among XRP holders: only a few XRP holders claim that the token is an unregistered security.