1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 443 F.Supp.
  5. 443 F.Supp. 40 (1977)
 

WALDMAN v. ELECTROSPACE CORP.

No. 74 Civ. 3097 (HFW).

443 F.Supp. 40 (1977)

Joseph WALDMAN, Sadie Sage, and Martin Dachs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ELECTROSPACE CORPORATION, L. Handelsman & Company, Arnold M. Wolf, Samuel R. Buxbaum, Martin Buchwald, Edward M. Cappucci, James R. De Senna, Halsey F. Hubbard, Herbert L. Wolf, Harvey Cohen, Raymond Rietschel, Morton Lowenbraun and Martin L. Rein, Defendants. Sidney DUBIN and Esther Dubin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. L. HANDELSMAN & COMPANY, Electrospace Corporation, Arnold M. Wolf, and Samuel R. Buxbaum, Defendants. Moses WOLF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. L. HANDELSMAN & COMPANY, Electrospace Corporation, Arnold M. Wolf and Samuel R. Buxbaum, Defendants.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

May 2, 1977.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Rabin & Silverman, New York City by I. Stephen Rabin, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiffs.

Rein, Mound & Cotton, New York City by Seymour J. Ugelow, New York City, of counsel, for defendants Lowenbraun and Rein.

Kronish, Lieb, Shainswit, Weiner & Hellman, New York City, Burton H. Brody, New York City, of counsel, for defendant Herbert L. Wolf.

Shea, Gould, Climenko & Casey, New York City by Leon P. Gold, New York City, of counsel, for defendant Harvey Cohen.

David M. Markowitz, New York City, for defendant James De Senna.

D'Amato, Costello & Shea, New York City by Robert E. Meshel, New York City, of counsel, for defendant L. Handelsman & Co.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

WERKER, District Judge.

This is plaintiffs' renewed motion for class action determination pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

An earlier motion seeking similar relief was denied by the court on September 8, 1975 upon a finding that the requisite degree of numerosity had not been demonstrated.1 68 F.R.D. 281 (S.D.N.Y.1975). At that time, the court held that an increase...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases