Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc. et al.

Filing 68

ORDER denying without prejudice to renewal by formal motion #65 Motion to Intervene. DENIED without prejudice to renewal in a motion that complies with Rule III(A) of the Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 3/15/2021) (kv)

Case 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN Document 68 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 3

3/15/2021

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIPPLE LABS, INC., BRADLEY GARLINGHOUSE,
and CHRISTIAN A. LARSEN

MOTION TO
INTERVENE
PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 24

Defendants,
20-cv-10832 (AT)
JORDAN DEATON, JAMES LAMONTE,
TYLER LAMONTE, MYA LAMONTE,
MITCHELL MCKENNA, KRISTIANA WARNER and
ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED XRP HOLDERS,
Proposed
Intervenors.
________________________________________________

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Proposed Intervenors, Jordan Deaton, James Lamonte,
Tyler Lamonte, Mya Lamonte, Mitchell Mckenna, Kristiana Warner and all other similarly
situated XRP holders (“XRP Holders”) respectfully move this Court for an Order granting leave
to intervene in the above-captioned case as of right under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a),
or in the alternative, as a matter of permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24(b). The matter will be set for a date and time to be determined by the Court.
XRP Holders seek intervention for the purpose of protecting their substantial interests
that will be greatly impacted by the disposition of this action.
The grounds for intervention as of right by XRP Holders are as follows, as explained
more fully in the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene
(“Memorandum of Law”), filed herewith:

Case 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN Document 68 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 3

1. The Motion to Intervene is timely.
2. XRP Holders have an interest relating to the property that is the subject of the
action – XRP.
3. XRP Holders are so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter
impair or impede their ability to protect its interests.
4. The existing parties do not adequately represent the interests of XRP Holders.

The grounds for permissive intervention by XRP Holders are as follows, also as
explained more fully in the accompanying Memorandum of Law:

1. The Motion to Intervene is timely.
2. XRP Holders have a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact.
3. The intervention of XRP Holders will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication
of the original parties’ rights.
4. If granted leave to intervene, XRP Holders will significantly contribute to the full
development of the underlying factual issues in the case and to the just and equitable
adjudication of the legal question presented.

For the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, XRP
Holders respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion to Intervene.

2

Case 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN Document 68 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 3

Dated: March 14, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

__________________
John E. Deaton, Esq.
THE DEATON LAW FIRM
450 North Broadway
East Providence, R.I. 02914
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Proposed Intervenors

DENIED without prejudice to renewal in a motion that complies with Rule III(A) of the Court’s Individual
Practices in Civil Cases.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 15, 2021
New York, New York

3