Court filing
Defendant’s Limited Response to Lead Plaintiff Motion — Wax v. Cross River (D.N.J.)
Filed December 23, 2024 in Wax v. Cross River; one of 21 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2024-12-23 |
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · No. 2:24-cv-09510-ES-JRA · Doc. 15 · 2024-12-23 · Docket on CourtListener
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.