§Why CasetextPricing

Benson v. Atlas Mining Company et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION to Appoint Counsel MOTION to Consolidate Cases MOTION consolidate related cases, appointment of lead plaintiffs and for approval of choice of lead and liaison counsel for the class, 17 MOTION to Consolidate Cases appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, 12 MOTION to Consolidate Cases, 15 MOTION to Consolidate Cases Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Competing Movants' Motions for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel and in Further Support of Motion of Rudy Rodriguez for Consolidation of All Similar Actions, Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead Plaintiff's Choice of Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel

13 Cited authorities

  1. In re Cendant Corp. Litigation

    264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 712 times
    Holding that the PSLRA is clear that "the power to `select and retain' lead counsel belongs . . . to the lead plaintiff, and the court's role is confined to deciding whether to `approve' that choice" and that should the court disagree with the lead plaintiffs choice "it should clearly state why . . . and should direct the lead plaintiff to undertake an acceptable selection process"

  2. In re Cavanaugh

    306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 347 times
    Holding that that options traders can satisfy the typicality requirement and serve as a lead plaintiff

  3. In re Network Associates, Inc., Securities Litigation

    76 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 1999)   Cited 110 times
    Holding that "lead plaintiff owes a fiduciary duty to obtain the highest quality legal representation at the lowest price"

  4. Takeda v. Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.

    67 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 1999)   Cited 49 times
    Finding slightly different class periods do not preclude a finding of typicality because varying class periods may be harmonized

  5. Ferrari v. Gisch

    225 F.R.D. 599 (C.D. Cal. 2004)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that relatively minor miscalculations of losses suffered by the presumptive most adequate plaintiff were not a legitimate basis for disqualification for lead plaintiff appointment

  6. Tanne v. Autobytel, Inc.

    226 F.R.D. 659 (C.D. Cal. 2005)   Cited 16 times
    Concluding that "the appointment of co-lead plaintiffs" was not "preferable to the appointment of a single lead plaintiff in this case"

  7. Armour v. Network Associates, Inc.

    171 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2001)   Cited 18 times
    Noting that as a class representative, the lead plaintiff in a Rule 23 class action owes a fiduciary duty to the represented class

  8. Schriver v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.

    Case No.: SACV 06-31 CJC (RNBx), Case No.: SACV 06-82 CJC (MLGx), Case No.: SACV 06-45 CJC (RNBx), Case No.: SACV 06-106 CJC (RNBx), Case No.: SACV 06-145 CJC (RNBx), Case No.: SACV 06-91 CJC (RNBx), Case No.: SACV 06-128 CJC (RNBx), Case No.: SACV 06-1177 CJC (RNBx) (C.D. Cal. May. 1, 2006)   Cited 9 times
    Noting that some courts have "expressed reluctance to permit aggregation of individual investors' claimed losses to confer lead plaintiff status absent some showing that the proposed group members have some relationship independent of the litigation or that they will be able to coordinate their efforts" while other courts have refused to allow investor groups to serve as lead plaintiff

  9. Siegall v. Tibco Software, Inc.

    No. C 05-2146 SBA, (Related to Case Nos. C 05-2205 SBA and C 05-23 73 SBA) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2006)   Cited 3 times

    No. C 05-2146 SBA, ( Related to Case Nos. C 05-2205 SBA and C 05-23 73 SBA) February 24, 2006 ORDER [Docket No. 21] SAUNDRA ARMSTRONG, District Judge This matter comes before the Court on Ralph Fenton and Sathya Rajasubramanian's Motion for Consolidation and to Appoint Ralph Fenton and Sathya Rajasubramanian as Lead Plaintiff and to Approve Lead Plaintiffs Selection of Lead Counsel ("Motion for Consolidation and Appointment of Lead Plaintiff). Having read and considered the arguments presented by

  10. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,923 times   1234 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

  11. Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 42   Cited 9,241 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

  12. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,464 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

  13. Section 77z-1 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 77z-1   Cited 454 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Discussing "[t]otal attorneys' fees and expenses" that can be awarded by court