Feitelberg v. Merrill Lynch & Co.
This text of 353 F.3d 765 (Feitelberg v. Merrill Lynch & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
353 F.3d 765
Jerome FEITELBERG, On Behalf of Himself, All Others Similarly Situated, And The General Public, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MERRILL LYNCH & CO., a Delaware Corporation; Thomas Mazzucco; Henry Blodget, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-17236.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted December 5, 2003 — San Francisco, California.
Filed December 24, 2003.
Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP, San Francisco, California, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jonathan C. Dickey, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, California, for the Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-03072-MHP.
Before: Myron H. BRIGHT,* Dorothy W. NELSON, and Pamela Ann RYMER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
We affirm for reasons stated by the district court in its opinion, Feitelberg v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 234 F.Supp.2d 1043 (N.D.Cal.2002).*
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
353 F.3d 765, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feitelberg-v-merrill-lynch-co-ca9-2003.