David Minton Andrew Minton v. McA Inc. Matsushita Holding Corporation Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.

48 F.3d 1228 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David MINTON; Andrew Minton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MCA, INC.; Matsushita Holding Corporation; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-55288. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 2, 1993. Submission Vacated Aug. 10, 1993. Reargued and Resubmitted Oct. 12, 1994. Decided Feb. 27, 1995. 1 Appeal from the United States District Court, for the Central District of California, D.C. No. CV-91-5914-R; Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding. 2 C.D.Cal. 3 REVERSED. 4 Before: NORRIS, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges 5 MEMORANDUM * 6 David and Andrew Minton filed a complaint in the Central District of California on December 16, 1991, alleging that Matsushita and MCA violated Rules 14d-10 and 10b-13, as well as section 14(d)(7) of the Williams Act. They also filed a motion for class certification. They filed their complaint shortly after the…