From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montoya v. Mamma.com Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 31, 2005
05 Civ. 2313 (HB), 05 Civ. 2483 (HB), 05 Civ. 2534 (HB), 05 Civ. 2625 (HB), 05 Civ. 2719 (HB), 05 Civ. 3444 (HB) (S.D.N.Y. May. 31, 2005)

Summary

appointing in-and-out trader as lead plaintiff because "at least at this stage, `in and out purchasers' do not appear to be `unique' and, thus, `render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.'"

Summary of this case from In re BearingPoint, Inc. Securities Litigation

Opinion

05 Civ. 2313 (HB), 05 Civ. 2483 (HB), 05 Civ. 2534 (HB), 05 Civ. 2625 (HB), 05 Civ. 2719 (HB), 05 Civ. 3444 (HB).

May 31, 2005


WHEREAS, following briefing and oral argument in Chambers on May 19, 2005; and

WHEREAS, Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to order all actions consolidated if they involve "common issues of law or fact


Summaries of

Montoya v. Mamma.com Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 31, 2005
05 Civ. 2313 (HB), 05 Civ. 2483 (HB), 05 Civ. 2534 (HB), 05 Civ. 2625 (HB), 05 Civ. 2719 (HB), 05 Civ. 3444 (HB) (S.D.N.Y. May. 31, 2005)

appointing in-and-out trader as lead plaintiff because "at least at this stage, `in and out purchasers' do not appear to be `unique' and, thus, `render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing the class.'"

Summary of this case from In re BearingPoint, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case details for

Montoya v. Mamma.com Inc.

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN MONTOYA, Individually, and on behalf of All Others Similarly…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: May 31, 2005

Citations

05 Civ. 2313 (HB), 05 Civ. 2483 (HB), 05 Civ. 2534 (HB), 05 Civ. 2625 (HB), 05 Civ. 2719 (HB), 05 Civ. 3444 (HB) (S.D.N.Y. May. 31, 2005)

Citing Cases

Weiss v. Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc.

"`[I]n and out purchasers" are those individuals or entities that purchases and sell shares within the class…

In re Gentiva Securities Litigation

There are several cases in the Second Circuit which demonstrate an avoidance to appoint "in-and-out traders"…