IN RE LENDINGCLUB SECURITIES LITIGATION, C 16-02627 WHA (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20171012d46
Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . On September 21, lead plaintiffs in In re LendingClub Corp. S'holder Litig., No. CIV537000 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.) moved to intervene for the limited purpose of objecting to class certification in this action (Dkt. No. 222). An order granted all the parties in this action an opportunity to respond to state plaintiffs' motion to intervene and their motion opposing class certification, but because
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . On September 21, lead plaintiffs in In re LendingClub Corp. S'holder Litig., No. CIV537000 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.) moved to intervene for the limited purpose of objecting to class certification in this action (Dkt. No. 222). An order granted all the parties in this action an opportunity to respond to state plaintiffs' motion to intervene and their motion opposing class certification, but because o..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
On September 21, lead plaintiffs in In re LendingClub Corp. S'holder Litig., No. CIV537000 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.) moved to intervene for the limited purpose of objecting to class certification in this action (Dkt. No. 222). An order granted all the parties in this action an opportunity to respond to state plaintiffs' motion to intervene and their motion opposing class certification, but because of the lateness of state plaintiffs' filing did not permit them an opportunity to reply (Dkt. No. 229).
On October 5, lead plaintiff in this action, Water and Power Employees' Retirement, Disability and Death Plan of the City of Los Angeles ("WPERP"), filed a response to state plaintiffs' motions (Dkt. No. 235). In addition to responding to state plaintiffs' arguments, the "response" requested this Court enjoin the state action.
State plaintiffs now seek leave to file an opposition to address WPERP's request for an injunction (which opposition is appended to their motion for leave). State plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED for the limited purpose of addressing WPERP's arguments that the state action should be enjoined.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
