EVELLARD v. LendingCLUB CORPORATION, C 16-02627 WHA (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20161114i68
Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER APPROVING LEAD PLAINTIFF'S SELECTION OF COUNSEL WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . After an in camera conference at which statements from a representative of the City Attorney's office and of the Board of WPERP were taken under oath and supplemental sworn declarations, the Court is persuaded that the selection of Robbins Geller was within the scope of several reasonable choices and was not influenced by any pay-to-play considerations. Therefore, the selection of Robbins Geller as coun
Summary: ORDER APPROVING LEAD PLAINTIFF'S SELECTION OF COUNSEL WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . After an in camera conference at which statements from a representative of the City Attorney's office and of the Board of WPERP were taken under oath and supplemental sworn declarations, the Court is persuaded that the selection of Robbins Geller was within the scope of several reasonable choices and was not influenced by any pay-to-play considerations. Therefore, the selection of Robbins Geller as couns..
More
ORDER APPROVING LEAD PLAINTIFF'S SELECTION OF COUNSEL
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
After an in camera conference at which statements from a representative of the City Attorney's office and of the Board of WPERP were taken under oath and supplemental sworn declarations, the Court is persuaded that the selection of Robbins Geller was within the scope of several reasonable choices and was not influenced by any pay-to-play considerations. Therefore, the selection of Robbins Geller as counsel for lead plaintiff is approved. By DECEMBER 9 AT NOON, counsel shall file a consolidated complaint.
The Court appreciates the time and effort undertaken by the nine other firms that applied to serve as counsel for lead plaintiff. In the course of preparing for the hearing, the Court reviewed some of the submissions made by candidates for selection as counsel for lead plaintiff and read with particularity the fee proposals, staffing proposals, and counsel's track records. The Court did not read passages dealing with plans for prosecuting the case. If any party in this action has any objection to the Court retaining this information, any objection must be made by NOVEMBER 3 AT NOON.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
