1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 47 F.3d
  5. 47 F.3d 373 (1995)
 

IN RE PACIFIC ENTERPRISES SECURITIES LITIGATION

No. 94-55935.

47 F.3d 373 (1995)

In re PACIFIC ENTERPRISES SECURITIES LITIGATION. Lee J. PRINCIPE; Ken Rudd; Steven Friedland; Myra Friedland; Leonard Held; Pisnoi Lumber & Trim Co., Inc. Pension Trust; Charles Thomas Miller; William Steiner; Pacific Enterprises, by Pisnoi Lumber & Trim Co., Inc. Pension Trust; Sheldon Shore; Edith Citron; William P. Anglim; W.M. Rogers, Executor of the Estate of Lydia P. Rogers; Eric J. Kakofsky; Herbert L. Eisen; James Foxwell; Martin Seltzer; Marjorie Seltzer, as Joint Tenants Shareholders Suing Derivatively and on its behalf, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James R. UKROPINA; Willis B. Wood, Jr.; Hyla H. Bertea; Herbert L. Carter; James F. Dickason; Wilford D. Godbold, Jr.; Ignazio C. Lozana, Jr.; Harold M. Messmer, Jr.; Paul A. Miller; Joseph N. Mitchell; Joseph R. Rensch; Rocco C. Siciliano; Leonard H. Straus; Daniel G. Volkmann, Jr.; Diana L. Walker; James H. Zumberge; Stanley A. Ratzlaff; Pacific Enterprises; Deloitte & Touche, Defendants-Appellees, v. Sam WEINSTEIN, Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Decided February 9, 1995.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard G. McCracken, Davis Cowell & Bowe, San Francisco, CA, for objector-appellant.

William S. Lerach & William S. Dato, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, San Diego, CA, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Richard H. Borow, Irell & Manella, Raymond C. Fisher, Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, James E. Lyons, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, John C. Morrissey, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, William W. Vaughn, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, CA, for defendants-appellees.

Before: FARRIS, POOLE and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

FARRIS, Circuit Judge:

The district court approved a simultaneous settlement of a derivative class action lawsuit and a securities class action lawsuit. Weinstein, one of the derivative plaintiffs, contests the derivative settlement only. The questions are whether the district court 1) had jurisdiction over the derivative plaintiffs' claims, 2) properly responded to Weinstein's settlement objections, or 3) abused its discretion by approving the settlement and the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases