07

- 52 57

- cv

The Chi um ent o G r oup v . O per at i ng Loc al649

The Honor able Sonia Sotomayor, orig inally a member

of this panel, wa s elevated to the * Sup re me Court

on Au gus t 8, 20 09 . T he tw o r e ma ini ngme mbe rs of the pa ne l, who are in agree ment, have de termined the matter. See 28 U .S.C. § 46(d); Interna l Operating Proc . E; United States v. De

simone , 140 F.3d 457 ( 2d Cir. 1998). The Honor able Charles S. Haight, J r., United States District Court J udg e for the Southern ** District of Ne w York, sitting by designation. 1 1 2 3 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS 4 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 5 6 S UM M ARY OR DER 7 8 RUL I NGS B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . CI T AT I ON TO A S UM M ARY 9 ORDER F I L E D ON OR A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E R M I T T E D A N D I S G OV E R N E D B Y F E D E RAL 10 RUL E OF AP PE L L AT E P ROCEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COURT ’ S L OCAL RUL E 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN C I T I NG A 11 S U M M A R Y OR D E R I N A D OC U M E N T F I L E D WI T H T HI S C OU R T , A P A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE 12 F ED ER A L A PP EN D I X O R A N ELE C TR O N I C D A T A B A SE (W ITH T H E N O T A T IO N “S U M M A R Y O R D E R ” ). 13 A P A R T Y CI T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C OP Y OF I T ON A N Y P A R T Y N OT 14 R EPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL . 1 At a stated te rm of the United States Court o f Ap p ea l s for the Second Circuit, held at the 2 Daniel P atric k M o y n ih an Un it e d St ate s Co urth o u s e , 5 0 0 Pe ar l Str e e t, in th e Ci ty o f N e w Y o r k , on 3 the 16 day

of F ebrua

ry , two thousand ten, th 4 5 6 PRES ENT: 7 B ARRI NG TO N D . PA RKER, 8 Circuit Judge , * 9 10 CHARL ES S. HAI GHT, 11 District Judge. ** 12

_____________________________________ 13 14 J eanne Chilt on, individually and on beha lf of all other s simil arly situated, 15 16 Plain tif f , 17 18 The Chiumento Group, Char les Chiumento, Maurice B enoudiz, Vivaine B enoudiz, Charles 19 Wal kie wi c z, D avid F . Z a gun is, 20 21 Mo v an ts- Ap pe lla nts ,This case was a rgued in tandem with Chi lto n v . S mi th B ar ne yFu nd Ma nage me nt L

LC , No. 07- *** 5125-cv, which will be dec ided in a sepa rate opinion.

2 1 Katherine E. Shropshire, Ha rold L evine, 2 3 Con so lid ate d-Plain tif

fs- Ap pe lla nts No. 07-5257-c v 4 S UM M ARY O R D ER 5 6 -v .- 7 8 Smit h Ba

rney Fund Ma nag ement L L C, Cit igr oup Global Marke ts, Inc., L ewis Da idone, Thomas 9 Jone s, 10 De fe nd an ts , 11 12 Oper atingL ocal 649 Annuity Trust Fund, 13 14 Plaintif f-Appellee

. 15

_________________ 16 17 FOR APPEL LANTS: J ules Br ody , Mark L evine, for Stull , Stull & B rody ; J oseph H. 18 Weiss, R ichar d A. Acoc elli, for Weiss & Lurie, Ne w York, N .Y.. 19 20 FOR APPEL L EES: U. Seth Ottensoser, Joseph R. Seidman, J r., Ann M. L ipton, for 21 Be rnstein L iebhar d & L ifshitz , L L P, New Yor k, N.Y. 22

__________________ 23 24 25 Appea l from an or der of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w 26 York (Paule y , J .) , a pp ointin gAp pe lle e s a s le a d p la int if fs and the ir c ouns e l a s le a d c ouns e l. *** 27 UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is h ere by ORDERED, ADJUDG ED, AND 28 DECREED that this app eal of the order of the district c ourt is AF F IRMED. 29 Appellants (c ollectively , “the Chiumento Group” ), appe al from a n order of the United 30 States District Court for the Southern District of New Y ork (Pauley , J. ) appointingAppellee s 31 (collec tively , “L ocal 649” ) as lea d plaintiffs in this securities class a ction litigation and a ppointing 32 Appellee s’ counse l, Be rnstein L iebhard & L ifshitz , L L P, as lead c ounsel. As re quired by the3 1 Pr ivate Se c ur iti e s L iti g atio n Re fo rm Ac t of 19 95 (t he “ PSL RA ” ), the Di stric t Co ur t ba se d it s 2 selec tion of lead plaintiff on its deter mination of “which me mber or me mbers of the purported 3 plaintiff class . . . [were ] m ost capa ble of a dequate ly

repr esentingthe intere sts of class member s.” 4 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)( 3)(B )(i). F inding that L ocal 649 ha d a “significantly greater” financ ial 5 interest in the re lief sought than the Chiumento Group, the cour t concluded that L ocal 649 wa s 6 presumptively

the most adequate plaintiff under the PSL RA. Be cause L ocal 649 a lso satisfied 7 Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 23(a)’s re quirements that a c lass repr esentative have “ claims . . . 8 ty

pical of the class” a

nd be ca pable of “fa irly and ade quately

protec t[ ing] the intere sts of the 9 class,” the court de emed L ocal 649 a s an ade quate a ppointment as lead plaintiff. We a ssume the 10 parties’ familiarity with the underly

ing f acts, proc edura l history , and issues pre sented on a ppeal. 11 We reviewa district cour t’s appointment of a le ad plaintiff f or abuse of discre tion. He v esi 12 v. Citigroup, Inc. , 3 66 F .3 d 7 0, 83 (2 d Ci r. 20 04 ). Th e PSL RApr ov ide s th at a c ourt sh ou ld 13 a

pp oint a s le a d p la int if

f “ the me mbe r o r m e mbe rs of the purp or

te d p la int if

f c la ss t hat [it] 14 deter

mines to be most capable of ade quately repr esentingthe intere sts of the class membe rs.” 15 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)( 3)(B )(i). The plaintiff with the “larg est financ ial interest in the re lief sought by 16 the c la ss” and wh o “ oth e rw ise satis fi e s th e re qu ir e me nts of [F e d. R. C iv. P.] 2 3” is p re sumpt ive ly 17 the most adequate plaintiff. Id. § 78u-4(a )(3) (B )(iii)(I ). The Rule 23 r equire ments applicable here 18 mandate that “the cla ims or defe nses of the r epre sentative pa rties [be] t y

pical of the claims or 19 defe nses of the c lass,” F ed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) ( the “ty picality” re quirement), a

nd that “the 20 repr e se ntativ e pa rt ie s . . . fa ir ly

and a de qu ate ly

pr ote c t th e int e re sts of

the c la ss, ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 21 23(a) (4) ( the “a dequac y” re quirement).4 1 We are satisfied that L ocal 649 ha s established its significa nt financia l interest in the 2 outcome of this litigation. We ar e also satisfied that L ocal 649 mee ts the class re quirements of 3 Rule 23. For the se re asons and those outlined in the district cour t’s opinion, we find no abuse of 4 dis c re tio n in

the c ourt ’s se le c tio n o f l e a d p la int if f a nd le a d c ouns e l. 5 The orde r of the D istrict Court is AFFIRMED. 6 7 8 FO R T HE CO URT , 9 Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk 10 11