§Why CasetextPricing

Bricklayers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan et al v. Hecla Mining Company et al

MEMORANDUM in Support re

17 Cited authorities

  1. Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.

    561 U.S. 247 (2010)   Cited 1,455 times   177 Legal Analyses
    Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction

  2. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

    150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 3,046 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. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.

    976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 1,611 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendants' statements emphasizing superior quality were material because "a reasonable jury could conclude that [the company] publicly released optimistic statements ... when it knew [its product] could not be built reliably"

  4. In re Cendant Corp. Litigation

    264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 709 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"

  5. In re Cavanaugh

    306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 346 times
    Holding that that options traders can satisfy the typicality requirement and serve as a lead plaintiff

  6. Investors Research Company, v. U.S. Dist. Ct.

    877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 91 times

    No. 89-70202. June 8, 1989. Before BROWNING, THOMPSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. ORDER Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to order the consolidation of two cases proceeding before different judges in the same district court. The petitioners are defendants in both cases. The cases were randomly assigned to different judges. The plaintiffs in both cases are represented by the same firm and filed a notice of related cases after filing the complaint in the second case. The district court judge assigned

  7. 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

  8. In re Equity Funding Corp. of America Securities Litigation

    416 F. Supp. 161 (C.D. Cal. 1976)   Cited 88 times
    Concluding that court was not precluded from considering amendments to pleadings once the actions had been transferred by the JPML

  9. SABBAGH v. CELL THERAPEUTICS, INC.

    NO. C10-414MJP, NO. C10-480MJP, NO. C10-559MJP (W.D. Wash. Aug. 2, 2010)   Cited 9 times

    NO. C10-414MJP, NO. C10-480MJP, NO. C10-559MJP. August 2, 2010 ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION AND APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF LEAD COUNSEL MARSHA PECHMAN, District JudgePage 2 The above-entitled Court, having received and reviewed [In Case No. C10-414] [In Case No. C10-480] 1. Motion of Yangjin Kim for Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Aproval of Lead Counsel (Dkt. No. 17); Memorandum of Law in Further Support of the CTIC Investor Group's Motion

  10. Perez-Funez v. District Director, I.N.S.

    611 F. Supp. 990 (C.D. Cal. 1984)   Cited 37 times
    Recognizing the American Civil Liberties Union as "qualified and experienced counsel," thereby meeting the adequacy of representation showing

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,829 times   1232 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"

  12. Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 42   Cited 9,203 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

  13. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,442 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party