Case Name: In re PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS LITIGATION Rochelle RITTMASTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert JACOBSON, Vera Jacobson, Appellants, PaineWebber Group, Inc.; PaineWebber, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1997-07-30
Citations: 117 F.3d 721
Docket Number: No. 2403, Docket 97-7540
Parties: In re PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS LITIGATION Rochelle RITTMASTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert JACOBSON, Vera Jacobson, Appellants, PaineWebber Group, Inc.; PaineWebber, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WINTER, Chief Judge, JACOBS and LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 117
Pages: 721–722

Head Matter:
In re PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS LITIGATION Rochelle RITTMASTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert JACOBSON, Vera Jacobson, Appellants, PaineWebber Group, Inc.; PaineWebber, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 2403, Docket 97-7540.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued July 15, 1997.
Decided July 30, 1997.
Edward T. Joyce, Chicago, IL, for Appellants.
Edward Labaton, New York City (Nicholas E. Chúmeles, Fred Taylor Isquith, Edward Grossmann, Burton H. Finkelstein, David J. Bershad, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Gluck, New York City (Peter L. Simmons, Rachel S. Fleishman, of counsel), for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WINTER, Chief Judge, JACOBS and LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert and Vera Jacobson appeal from Judge Stein's approval of a settlement and allocation agreement in this class action and denial of the Jacobsons' motions to intervene and to be certified as subclass representatives. We affirm for the reasons set forth in Judge Stein's opinions. In re PaineWebber Ltd. Partnerships Litig., 171 F.R.D. 104 (S.D.N.Y.1997); In re PaineWebber Ltd. Partnership Litig., 174 F.R.D. 35 (S.D.N.Y.1996).