Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

.-_--..M W rr. ....... —-&...Y.—~·- —.—. -i ——-·———~——-·—····——*·;···————f·f·i·:·`iT·—|
t Case 3:00-cv-00705-CFD Document 164 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 1 of 1
,J _ I-- -_——--___-mu—A_~_“*mv7iwmmmr`m"-h"_-"___wm_w_“i___r_______r__•_Wi_____"___________?_____________, _,___,___p__p__ ____ ,________,,_,______ _,,,,.,. ,.-.-..........L.
W `¥——“_ — 00-cv-705
- ‘ Droney, J.
J ·I ll ?;a '1 in .
z ~ ~ I ·‘ United States Court of Appeals
ron rua _, _ _ _ _
Zuni Util iu 13 1= 2U SECOND CIRCIIIT 1
_
I Ni;. 2 [ ; .Atta‘stzl1?ted Tenn ofthe United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in
the City of New York, on the /5 .7'/v’ day of Aueue;-· two thousa • and tive,
` 1p,1ES COURTO
$5 F
, Present: gx FILED I 4’°·$.._}
Hon. Robert A. Katzrnann, :° f AUG 15 zum 23 1
Hon. Richard C. Wesley, - ** ,08 ` »— .
H . P t . ll *9 `"I K°‘°°‘°
on e er W 'Ha l, GQOND OIRLQG
Circuit Judges.
In re PE Corporation Securities Litigation.
David Berlin, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v. 05-8010
PE Corporation, et al.,
Defendants-Petitioners. g
i
Defendants petition for pemiission to appeal, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(t), the district court’s
order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED I
that the petition is DENIED, as an immediate appeal ofthe order is not warranted. _S_c;:_ Sumitomo
Copper Litig. v. Credit Lyonnais Rouse, 1;;;, 262 F.3d 134, 139-40 (2d Cir. 2001).
Fon Tl·l·E{On RT: {
Rosea . acKe Clerk
(“
Oliva M. George, Deputy CI rk
A mane CGPY
SAO-KF ., mm _
-IS·SUED AS MANDATE _ 6 DEPUTY CLERK {
Z Q l 1-; -‘_’i‘-l i ` i _ v —Li V7 — --———~·——=·¤-—:¢—-=-<-—¤·=-=··==·3¤==;:—==’—¤’»¤’>e¤*%?=3‘·:;.¤:*¤~
ur - . I I I itit ` I ’ ° * Ii ’
r I I l- — - rl . ; 1 ·e xr
i _ p ,, j_ __ p ···—·~~··~··~=·~—·e=~=eWeeeeeeee?=·=a - I

ee . . L I I I I I Iiii ` I ` Ii ` ’
_ ,_,_,,, ii? CC e-»———”` ”` CC C" "”°_