9 Cited authorities

Baffa v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Secs. Corp.
222 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 709 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "class certification is inappropriate where a putative class representative is subject to unique defenses which threaten to become the focus of the litigation"
In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.
960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 692 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that Shutts did not require opt-out rights in a Rule 23(b)(B) class action because the plaintiffs had already submitted to the district court's jurisdiction by filing bankruptcy claims against the defendant
Gluck v. Cellstar Corporation
976 F. Supp. 542 (N.D. Tex. 1997) Cited 102 times
Finding that proposed lead plaintiff need only make a "preliminary showing" that it satisfies Rule 23 requirements for class certification
In re Independent Energy Holdings PLC Securities Litigation
210 F.R.D. 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) Cited 62 times
Rejecting as atypical a proposed lead plaintiff who had bought shares in reliance on his personal relationship with a defendant
Sakhrani v. Brightpoint, Inc., (S.D.Ind. 1999)
78 F. Supp. 2d 845 (S.D. Ind. 1999) Cited 33 times
Holding that appointment of " artificial group of persons as lead plaintiffs should be rare under the PSLRA"
Fields v. Biomatrix, Inc.
198 F.R.D. 451 (D.N.J. 2000) Cited 20 times
Investors brought multiple securities fraud class actions against corporation and individual officers. Institutional investor moved to consolidate actions, for its appointment as lead plaintiff, and for approval of its selection of lead counsel. The District Court, Bassler, J., consolidated actions and held that: (1) Court could sua sponte consider defendants' objections to institutional investor's appointment; (2) defendants were not entitled to discovery; and (3) fact that institutional investor
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,820 times 1247 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"
Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 Cited 9,504 times 24 Legal Analyses
Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."
Rule 38 - Right to a Jury Trial; Demand
Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 Cited 2,301 times 9 Legal Analyses
Explaining that a party waives its right to a jury trial by failing to properly request one

Eichenholtz v. Verifone Holdings, Inc. et al

9 Cited authorities

Holding that "class certification is inappropriate where a putative class representative is subject to unique defenses which threaten to become the focus of the litigation"

Holding that Shutts did not require opt-out rights in a Rule 23(b)(B) class action because the plaintiffs had already submitted to the district court's jurisdiction by filing bankruptcy claims against the defendant

Finding that proposed lead plaintiff need only make a "preliminary showing" that it satisfies Rule 23 requirements for class certification

Rejecting as atypical a proposed lead plaintiff who had bought shares in reliance on his personal relationship with a defendant

Holding that appointment of " artificial group of persons as lead plaintiffs should be rare under the PSLRA"

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"

Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

Explaining that a party waives its right to a jury trial by failing to properly request one