Defendant’s Limited Response to Lead Plaintiff Motion — Wax v. Cross River (D.N.J.)

Summary

Defendant's Limited Response to Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff, filed December 23, 2024 as Document 15 in Mitchell Wax v. Cross River Bank, Case No. 2:24-cv-09510, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Cross River Bank states it takes no position on plaintiff Mitchell Wax's motion to be appointed lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 or on approval of his chosen counsel. The bank reserves all rights and defenses on the underlying claims, including standing and class certification defenses. Citing In re Cendant Corp. Litigation, it argues any evaluation of typicality and adequacy at this stage is preliminary and that an appointing order should say so. Steven M. Rosato of DLA Piper LLP (US) signed /s/ for the bank.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
MITCHELL WAX, Individually and on 
behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
CROSS RIVER BANK,  
Defendant. 
Case No. 2:24-cv-09510 (BRM) (JRA)
DEFENDANT’S LIMITED 
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR 
APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF 
Defendant Cross River Bank (“CRB”) respectfully submits this limited response to 
plaintiff Mitchell Wax’s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities 
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”) and approval of his selection of counsel.  
See ECF No. 9.   
CRB takes no position with respect to plaintiff’s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff 
or the approval of the selection of lead plaintiff’s counsel.  For the avoidance of doubt, however, 
CRB reserves all rights and defenses as to the underlying claims, including without limitation all 
defenses based on standing or the appropriateness as a class representative of any appointed lead 
plaintiff in addition to all other defenses to class certification.   
At this early stage of the case, any evaluation of typicality and adequacy of proposed lead 
plaintiffs under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is necessarily preliminary.  In re 
Cendant Corp. Litig., 264 F.3d 201, 263 (3d Cir. 2001) (“The initial inquiry” on a lead plaintiff 
motion “should be confined to determining whether the movant has made a prima facie showing 
of typicality and adequacy.”); see Labelle v. Future Fintech Grp., Inc., 2024 WL 4275226, at *2 
(D.N.J. Sept. 24, 2024) (“At the appointment of lead plaintiff stage, the Rule 23 analysis is limited 
Case 2:24-cv-09510-ES-JRA     Document 15     Filed 12/23/24     Page 1 of 2 PageID: 235

2 
to determining whether the movant has made a prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy[.]”) 
(internal quotations omitted).  Any order appointing lead plaintiff(s) should make that clear. 
Dated: December 23, 2024 
New York, New York 
OF COUNSEL: 
John J. Clarke, Jr. (pro hac vice to be filed) 
DLA Piper LLP (US) 
1251 Avenue of the Americas 
New York, New York 10020 
(212) 335-4500 
john.clarke@us.dlapiper.com 
Richard Zelichov (pro hac vice to be filed) 
DLA Piper LLP (US) 
2000 Avenue of the Stars 
Suite 400 North Tower 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 
(310) 595-3000 
richard.zelichov@us.dlapiper.com 
DLA PIPER LLP (US) 
By:  /s/ Steven M. Rosato 
 
Steven M. Rosato  
1251 Avenue of the Americas 
New York, New York 10020 
(212) 335-4500 
steven.rosato@us.dlapiper.com 
Attorneys for Defendant 
  Cross River Bank
Case 2:24-cv-09510-ES-JRA     Document 15     Filed 12/23/24     Page 2 of 2 PageID: 236

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.njd.555169.15.0.pdf

Size

20,249 bytes

SHA-256

f67baea3283ddd4a50e36a16bb4018b77f02e3a3efbe934a32c26c301db07435

Our copy

gov.uscourts.njd.555169.15.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.