The Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated

N.D. California

The Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated

DecidedJanuary 16, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-04744

StatusUnknown

This text of The Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated (The Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

10 DOUGLAS GREENE, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 19-04744 WHA

12 v.

13 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION ORDER APPROVING LEAD INCORPORATED, et al., PLAINTIFF’S SELECTION OF 14 COUNSEL Defendants. 15

16 17 A November 26 order appointed The Police Retirement System of St. Louis as lead 18 plaintiff. St. Louis now moves for appointment of lead counsel. In compliance with the 19 November 26 order, St. Louis has submitted under seal declarations and exhibits explaining the 20 due diligence it has undertaken in its selection of counsel including a certification that no “pay 21 to play” took place as well as an explanation of why it favors its selected counsel over other 22 potential candidates. 23 Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, “[t]he most adequate plaintiff 24 shall, subject to the approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the class.” 15 25 U.S.C. 78u–4(a)(3)(B)(v). “[I]f the lead plaintiff has made a reasonable choice of counsel, the 26 district court should generally defer to that choice.” Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. Of 27 Cal., 586 F.3d 703, 712 (9th Cir. 2009). 1 Originally, lead plaintiff was represented by Robbins LLP, but following its diligence 2 process, lead plaintiff has now selected Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as class counsel. Based 3 on explanations by lead plaintiff and based on the Court’s review of the materials submitted, 4 including the fee arrangements and track record submitted by all candidates, the Court appoints 5 the firm of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as class counsel. 6 The Court appreciates the time and effort undertaken by the other firms that applied to 7 serve as counsel for lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff shall file a consolidated complaint by 8 FEBRUARY 20 AT NOON. Defendants may file a motion to dismiss (or answer) by MARCH 26 9 AT NOON. Any such motion shall be noticed on the normal 35-day track. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 Dated: January 16, 2020.

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

10 DOUGLAS GREENE, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 19-04744 WHA

12 v.

13 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION ORDER APPROVING LEAD INCORPORATED, et al., PLAINTIFF’S SELECTION OF 14 COUNSEL Defendants. 15

16 17 A November 26 order appointed The Police Retirement System of St. Louis as lead 18 plaintiff. St. Louis now moves for appointment of lead counsel. In compliance with the 19 November 26 order, St. Louis has submitted under seal declarations and exhibits explaining the 20 due diligence it has undertaken in its selection of counsel including a certification that no “pay 21 to play” took place as well as an explanation of why it favors its selected counsel over other 22 potential candidates. 23 Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, “[t]he most adequate plaintiff 24 shall, subject to the approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the class.” 15 25 U.S.C. 78u–4(a)(3)(B)(v). “[I]f the lead plaintiff has made a reasonable choice of counsel, the 26 district court should generally defer to that choice.” Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. Of 27 Cal., 586 F.3d 703, 712 (9th Cir. 2009). 1 Originally, lead plaintiff was represented by Robbins LLP, but following its diligence 2 process, lead plaintiff has now selected Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as class counsel. Based 3 on explanations by lead plaintiff and based on the Court’s review of the materials submitted, 4 including the fee arrangements and track record submitted by all candidates, the Court appoints 5 the firm of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as class counsel. 6 The Court appreciates the time and effort undertaken by the other firms that applied to 7 serve as counsel for lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff shall file a consolidated complaint by 8 FEBRUARY 20 AT NOON. Defendants may file a motion to dismiss (or answer) by MARCH 26 9 AT NOON. Any such motion shall be noticed on the normal 35-day track. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 Dated: January 16, 2020.

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

The Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-police-retirement-system-of-st-louis-v-granite-construction-cand-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack