Wenderhold

Wenderhold v. Cylink Corp.

Good Law
1999 WL 1067507·189 F.R.D. 570·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18420
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 26, 1999Nos. C 98-4292 VRW, C 98-4296 VRW, C 98-4360 VRW, C 98-4536 VRW, C 98-4603 VRW, C 98-4673 VRW, C 98-4757 VRWCalifornia2,096 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Walker, J.

On September 3, 1999, the court entered an order consolidating these securities class *571 actions, provisionally certifying a class, provisionally designating Jonny Alpern as lead plaintiff and requesting competitive bids from lawyers seeking designation as class counsel. See Wenderhold v. Cylink Corp., 188 F.R.D. 577 (N.D.Cal.1999). By September 30, 1999 — the deadline for class counsel bids — the court had received but a single proposal. This is surprising as six firms initially sought to represent a class of Cylink stock purchasers in pursuing the claims at bar. In any event, the law firm of Abbey, Gardner & Squitieri was the sole bidder.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the district court must exercise its inherent authority to assure that the amount and mode of payment of attorneys’ fees are fair and proper. This duty exists independent of any objection [from a member of the class].” Zucker v. Occidental Petroleum, 192 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir.1999). For the reasons stated below, the court finds the Abbey bid unacceptable.

In evaluating Abbey’s bid for designation as class counsel, the court is guided by Rule 23 and prior cases in which courts have…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.