Elaine Merz v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 6

MINUTES (In Chambers) by Judge Dale S. Fischer re Adequacy of Class Counsel. See Minute Order for specifics. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 4/29/2013. (dp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM

Case No.
Title

Date

CV 13-2287 DSF (FFMx)

4/15/13

Elaine Merz v. Ford Motor Corp.

Present: The
Honorable

DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge

Debra Plato
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause re Adequacy of Class Counsel

Although adequacy of counsel is ordinarily determined after class certification, it
appears an early preliminary determination of whether Plaintiff’s counsel would be
adequate class counsel would serve the interests of the putative class and of judicial
economy. Therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to show cause why they would be
adequate counsel to represent the class if a class were certified. In appointing class
counsel, the Court:
(A) must consider:
(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential
claims in the action;
(ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex
litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;
(iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and
(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class;
(B) may consider any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class;
(C) may order potential class counsel to provide information on any subject
pertinent to the appointment and to propose terms for attorney’s fees and
nontaxable costs.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(1).
A written response must be submitted no later than April 29, 2013. The response
should provide full and complete information responsive to Rule 23(g)(1)(A) and (B),
CV-90 (12/02)

MEMORANDUM

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
and sufficient for the Court to make an informed decision. The response should also
provide any agreement between Plaintiff and counsel (which may be filed in camera and
under seal), any agreement relating to this action with any other person or entity, and
counsel’s proposal for terms for attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs. See Rule
23(g)(1)(C).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (12/02)

MEMORANDUM

Page 2 of 2