From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Aug 27, 2010
619 F.3d 287 (3d Cir. 2010)

Opinion

Nos. 08-2784, 08-2785, 08-2798, 08-2799, 08-2818, 08-2819, 08-2831, 08-2881.

August 27, 2010.

Howard B. Becker, Esq., Korein Tillery, St. Louis, MO, Craig C. Corbitt, Esq., Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel Mason, Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy, Binkow Goldberg, Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq., Berman, Devalerio, Pease, Tabacco, Burt Pucillo, William Bernstein, Esq., Eric B. Fastiff, Esq., Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann Bernstein, Josef D. Cooper, Cooper Kirkham, San Francisco, CA, John A. Maher, Esq., Summit, NJ, for Appellants.

Jessica Biggio, Matthew P. Hendrickson, Esq., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom, New York, NY, Francis Ciani-Dausch, Esq., Tara S. Emory, Esq., Mark J. Sagat, Esq., Steven C. Sunshine, Esq., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

John J. Pentz, III, Esq., Class Action Fairness Group, Maynard, MA, for David T. Murray.

Present SCIRICA, RENDELL, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.


ORDER


Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing filed by appellees and the answers filed by appellants, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc is granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion and judgment filed July 13, 2010, is hereby vacated. The Clerk of this Court shall list the above case for rehearing en banc at the convenience of the Court.


Summaries of

Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Aug 27, 2010
619 F.3d 287 (3d Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Shawn SULLIVAN; Arrigotti Fine Jewelry; James Walnum, on behalf of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Aug 27, 2010

Citations

619 F.3d 287 (3d Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc

A panel of our Court held that the District Court's ruling was inconsistent with the predominance inquiry…

Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc.

A panel of our Court held that the District Court's ruling was inconsistent with the predominance inquiry…