Legal Opinion
Hurst v. Enphase Energy, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided November 30, 2020No. 5:20-cv-04036Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 GREGORY A. HURST, Case No. 20-cv-04036-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTIONS TO APPOINT 9 v. LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVE SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL 10 ENPHASE ENERGY, INC., et al., [Re: ECF 12, 17] 11 Defendants. 12 13 Now before the Court are dueling motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval 14 of selection of lead counsel. ECF 12, 17. Based on the reasons discussed at the October 15, 2020 15 motion hearing and further explained below, the Court GRANTS Gregory Hurst’s motion and 16 DENIES…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. BroudoSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- David Hanon v. Dataproducts Corporation Jack C. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Howard Wool v. Tandem Computers Incorporated, Robert C. Marshall, Henry v. Morgan, and James G. TreybigCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Metzler Investment GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Kay Hollinger Richard Llewelyn Jones Edward E. Nissen Judy D'Arcy K-Judy, Ltd. v. Titan Capital Corp. Emil Wilkowski Painter Financial Group, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.