Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
Β§

In re Boardwalk Marketplace Securities Litigation

122 F.R.D. 4 (D. Conn. 1988)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In re Boardwalk Marketplace Securities Litigation

7 Citing cases

  1. Garner v. Healy

    184 F.R.D. 598 (N.D. Ill. 1999)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that reliance could be resolved on a class-wide basis because the alleged fraud was perpetrated in a uniform manner when a company sold "car wax," which in fact contained no wax

    There is some case law that supports the application of both statutes to non-resident consumers. SeeBrown v. Market Development, Inc., 41 Ohio Misc. 57, 60, 322 N.E.2d 367, 369 (Ct.Com.Pl.1974) (Ohio Act applies irrespective of the location of the consumer); In re Boardwalk Marketplace Secs. Litig., 122 F.R.D. 4, 8 (D.Conn.1988) (applying Connecticut state law to out-of-state claimants where defendant partnerships were formed under Connecticut law); Jacobs Mfg. Co. v. Sam Brown Co., No. 84-0887-CV-W-9, 1986 WL 7815, at *5 (CUTPA applies to " course of conduct emanating out of Connecticut which constituted unfair methods of competition" ). More importantly, however, Defendants have not provided this Court with any case law that would prohibit the application of the Ohio or Connecticut consumer fraud statutes to non-resident consumers under these circumstances.

  2. Morel v. Giuliani

    927 F. Supp. 622 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)   Cited 23 times
    Finding irreparable harm where New York City regularly failed to provide "aid continuing" benefits, in violation of federal and state law

    Because absent class members will be bound by the results obtained by the class representatives and their attorneys, due process requires the Court to scrutinize the adequacy of purported class representatives. See In re Boardwalk Marketplace Secs. Litig., 122 F.R.D. 4, 7-8 (D.Conn. 1988). "The adequate-representation requirement is satisfied by a commonality of interests between representatives and class members and vigorous prosecution by plaintiftis] and plaintiffs' counsel."

  3. In re AES Corp. Securities Litigation

    849 F. Supp. 907 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)   Cited 7 times

    Plaintiffs cite a line of cases for the proposition that "individual questions of reliance are not appropriate in determining whether class action is proper, and thus are not sufficient to defeat class certification." Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition at 4 (citing In re Boardwalk Marketplace Sec. Litig., 122 F.R.D. 4, 7 (D.Conn. 1988); Kamerman v. Ockap Corp., 112 F.R.D. 195, 198 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Dura-Bilt Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Corp., 89 F.R.D. 87, 98 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); Green v. Wolf Corp., 406 F.2d 291, 301 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 977, 89 S.Ct. 2131, 23 L.Ed.2d 766 (1969)). First, it is not at all clear that sophistication is never relevant for purposes of class certification, But even assuming this to be true, our holding today is not to the contrary.

  4. Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co.

    147 F.R.D. 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)   Cited 57 times
    Finding that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has a "preference for class certification in securities cases"

    In either case, these numbers are sufficient to satisfy the numerosity criterion of Rule 23 and make the joinder of all Class members impracticable. SeeKorn, 456 F.2d at 1209; In re Boardwalk Marketplace Sec. Litig., 122 F.R.D. 4, 6 (D.Conn.1988).          B.

  5. Deutschman v. Beneficial Corp.

    132 F.R.D. 359 (D. Del. 1990)   Cited 59 times
    Denying intervention as of right because "[t]he possibility that [the proposed class representative] might in the future prove an inadequate class representative is insufficient to satisfy Rule 24's requirement that proposed intervenor's interests are not adequately represented by the current parties. . . . Fear of future divergence of interests is insufficient to establish inadequate representation in the absence of a current conflict."

    1990); Dowling v. Narragansett Capital Corp., 735 F.Supp. 1105, 1113 (D.R.I.1990); Grace v. Perception Technology Corp., 128 F.R.D. 165, 171-72 (D.Mass.1989); In re Boardwalk Marketplace Sec. Lit., 122 F.R.D. 4, 8 (D.Conn.1988); and In re United Energy Corp., Etc. Sec. Lit., 122 F.R.D. 251 (C.D.Cal.1988) with, e.g.,Simon v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 482 F.2d 880, 883 (5th Cir.1973); In re Bexar County Health Facility Dev. Corp. Sec. Lit., 125 F.R.D. 625, 636 (E.D.Pa.1989); Katz v. Comdisco, Inc., 117 F.R.D. 403, 412 (N.D.Ill.

  6. Zinberg v. Washington Bancorp, Inc.

    138 F.R.D. 397 (D.N.J. 1990)   Cited 69 times
    Holding that the court makes a de novo review of the parts of the report to which the parties object

    See, e.g.,Grace v. Perception Technology Corp., 128 F.R.D. 165, 171 (D.Mass.1989); Longden v. Sunderman, 123 F.R.D. 547, 555-56 (N.D.Tex.1988); In re Boardwalk Marketplace Securities Litig., 122 F.R.D. 4, 8 (D.Conn.1988); Keyser v. Commonwealth Nat'l Financial Corp., 121 F.R.D. 642, 649-50 (M.D.Pa.1988); In re ORFA Securities Litig., 654 F.Supp. 1449, 1461 (D.N.J.1987).

  7. Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc.

    611 A.2d 467 (Del. 1992)   Cited 169 times
    Holding that because individual reliance predominates over other issues, no class may be certified in a common law fraud claim involving the stockholders of a corporation as a proposed class

    There is another line of cases in which some federal courts have certified both federal securities claims and pendent common law fraud claims where plaintiffs' common law fraud and federal securities claims are based on the same course of conduct by defendants. See Deutschman v. Beneficial Corp., supra n. 5, 132 F.R.D. at 379 (citing Worlds of Wonder Sec. Lit., [1989-1990 Transfer Binder] Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) ΒΆ 95,004 at 95,628-629, 1990 WL 61951 (N.D.Cal. 1990)); Dowling v. Narragansett Capital Corp., 735 F.Supp. 1105, 1113 (D.R.I. 1990); Grace v. Perception Technology Corp., 128 F.R.D. 165, 171-72 (D.Mass. 1989); In re Boardwalk Marketplace Sec. Lit., 122 F.R.D. 4, 8 (D.Conn. 1988); and In re United Energy Corp., Etc. Sec. Lit., 122 F.R.D. 251 (C.D.Cal. 1988). Such cases are readily distinguishable from the present case, however, since they are primarily based on federal securities law violations.