Opinion ID: 335357
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 8 Rule 23.1, F.R.Civ.P., provides, among other things, that a shareholder derivative action may not be maintained if it appears that the plaintiff does not fairly and adequately represent the interests of the shareholders . . . similarly situated . . . . 9 In considering the record before it, the district court quite properly considered whether appellant satisfied the requirements of the rule in question. In determining the adequacy of appellant as a representative of other shareholders, the court was entitled to rely not only upon the pleadings, but also the affidavits submitted by the parties relating information of direct consequence to the issue before the court. Shulman v. Ritzenberg (a Rule 23 class action case), 47 F.R.D. 202 (D.D.C.1969). The appellant having made no objection to the procedure followed in the district court, or offered additional evidence, is in no position to complain. 10 Determination of right to bring a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Civ.P., is in the considered discretion of the trial court. Under the standard which has evolved in this circuit for the review of these determinations, which by analogy should also apply to determinations under Rule 23.1, we will not overturn a determination upon appeal unless it is shown that the district court abused its discretion. Clark v. Watchie, 513 F.2d 994 (C.A.9 1975); Rutledge v. Electric Hose & Rubber Co., 511 F.2d 668 (C.A.9 1975). 11 Although the evidence is not wholly undisputed, and even though there is a possibility that some of the facts might not in themselves prevent a derivative suit, when considered in totality, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying appellant's claim to proceed. Consequently, we hold there is a sound basis for the court's conclusion that appellant could not fairly and adequately represent other shareholders and that it did not abuse its discretion. 12 Since appellant is not entitled to proceed, we need not examine his other claims. Nolen v. Shaw-Walker Co., 449 F.2d 506, 508 (C.A.6 1971). 13 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.