Salazar v. Honest Tea, Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/20/2014 ORDERING 9 Motion to Appoint Interim Class Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SARAH A. SALAZAR, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15

No.: 2:13-cv-02318-KJM-EFB

HONEST TEA, INC.,
Defendant.

16

This matter is before the court on the motion by plaintiff Sarah A. Salazar

17
18

(“plaintiff” or “Ms. Salazar”) to appoint interim class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil

19

Procedure 23(g)(3). (ECF 9.) Defendant Honest Tea, Inc. (“defendant” or “Honest Tea”)

20

opposes the motion. (ECF 18.) The court held a hearing on the matter on April 25, 2014, at

21

which Annick Persinger and Yeremey Krivoshey appeared for plaintiff and Travis Tu and

22

Tammy Webb appeared for defendant. As explained below, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion

23

without prejudice.

24

I.

DISCUSSION

25

Because the parties are familiar with the alleged facts in this case, and because the

26

court provides a thorough account of the allegations in the order on defendant’s motion to dismiss

27

that will issue shortly, the court does not review the allegations in this order. Accordingly, this

28

order discusses only plaintiff’s motion for appointment of interim counsel.
1

1

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. (“Bursor & Fisher”) as

2

interim class counsel for plaintiff and the proposed classes. (ECF 9 at 1.) Defendant opposes the

3

appointment of interim class counsel, arguing it is premature and unnecessary. (ECF 18 at 1.)

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) provides that, “[t]he court may designate

5

interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the

6

action as a class action.” Where a “number of overlapping, duplicative, or competing suits” are

7

pending and “a number of lawyers may compete for class counsel appointment,” the appointment

8

can clarify “responsibility for protecting the interests of the class during precertification

9

activities[.]” MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION § 21.11 at 246 (4th ed. 2004).

10

Here, plaintiff's motion for appointment of interim class counsel is premature and

11

unnecessary because plaintiff has not identified any known overlapping, duplicative, or

12

competing suits, and no other attorneys are competing for class counsel appointment at this time.

13

Further, the case has not proceeded beyond the pleading stage.

14

Accordingly, at this time, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

15

interim class counsel without prejudice. At the proper stage, the court will consider plaintiff’s

16

renewed motion.

17

II.

18
19
20
21

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to appoint interim

class counsel without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 20, 2014.

22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2