Legal Opinion
Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 18, 2011No. B222889PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J
This case presents a single issue of statutory interpretation. The federal Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933 Act; 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq.), as amended by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA; Pub.L. No. 105-353 (Nov. 3, 1998) 112 Stat. 3227), provides for concurrent jurisdiction for cases asserting claims under the 1933 Act, except as specifically provided with regard to certain class actions.
Defendants contend, and the trial court found, that the exception includes this case, which is, in the parlance of the statute, a “covered class…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. DabitSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LPCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement FundSupreme Court of the United States · 2018
- Center for Local Government Accountability v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Electrical Workers Local 357 Pension v. Clovis Oncology, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2016
- Countrywide Financial Corp. v. LutherSupreme Court of the United States · 2011