§Why CasetextPricing

In Re Snap Inc. Securities Litigation

REPLY In Support Of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Intervene 120

9 Cited authorities

  1. Coopers Lybrand v. Livesay

    437 U.S. 463 (1978)   Cited 2,806 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding interlocutory orders appealable if they: "conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment."

  2. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

    150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 3,044 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies dominate[d]" over "idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws" where a nationwide class of minivan buyers’ claims turned on "questions of [the manufacturer’s] prior knowledge of the [vehicle’s] deficiency, the design defect, and a damages remedy"

  3. Adams v. California Dept

    487 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 896 times
    Holding that separate federal statutes "establish[ing] distinct rights enforceable by litigants" are not alone sufficient to differentiate prior and later filed actions

  4. Eggleston v. Chi. Journeymen Plumbers' Local Union No. 130

    657 F.2d 890 (7th Cir. 1981)   Cited 580 times
    Holding that a parent corporation not named in an EEOC charge could not be sued under Title VII because, although it had notice of the suit of its subsidiary, it did not know of charges against itself nor did it have an opportunity to participate in conciliation on its own behalf.

  5. Hartsel Springs Ranch v. Bluegreen Corp.

    296 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 2002)   Cited 164 times
    Finding that claim splitting did not apply despite the fact that "the claims in both cases arise from a single wrong, . . . [defendants] maintained identical boards of directors and officers, and that 'the parties in both cases are represented by the same attorneys,'" because the corporate defendants did not share "identical" interests

  6. In re Lendingclub Sec. Litig.

    282 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (N.D. Cal. 2017)   Cited 19 times
    Finding in-and-out traders appropriately included at the class certification stage

  7. Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

    No. C 14-1783 PJH (N.D. Cal. May. 15, 2015)   Cited 4 times
    Denying the plaintiff's similar request to bifurcate and separately remand a request for injunctive relief in a consumer protection case: "this court . . . remains . . . flummoxed by the prospect of attempting to remand a remedy without any accompanying cause of action seeking that remedy."

  8. Clayton v. Tintri, Inc.

    CASE NO. 17-cv-05683-YGR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    CASE NO. 17-cv-05683-YGR CASE NO. 17-cv-05684-YGR 10-30-2017 LAURENCE CLAYTON, Plaintiff, v. TINTRI, INC., ET AL., Defendants. RUSTEM NURLYBAYEV, Plaintiff, v. TINTRI, INC., ET AL., Defendants. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ORDER REMANDING CASES TO STATE COURT On October 3, 2017, defendants Tintri, Inc., et al. (collectively "Tintri") removed the above-captioned securities class actions alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. § 77 (the "Securities Act"). (See Clayton v. Tintri

  9. Golosiy v. Tintri, Inc.

    CASE NO. 17-cv-05876-YGR (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017)

    CASE NO. 17-cv-05876-YGR 11-20-2017 VLADIMIR GOLOSIY, Plaintiff, v. TINTRI, INC., ET AL., Defendants. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT On October 13, 2017, defendants Tintri, Inc., et al. removed the above-captioned securities class action alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. § 77 (the "Securities Act"). (Dkt. No. 1.) On October 18, 2017, this Court related the case sua sponte to Clayton v. Tintri, Inc., 17-cv-05683-YGR ("Clayton") and Nurlybayev