Evans et al v. ZB, N.A.
Filing
83
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 11/5/20 DENYING 71 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
13
14
RONALD C. EVANS, an individual;
JOAN M. EVANS, an individual;
DENNIS TREADAWAY, an individual;
and all others similarly
situated
17
18
v.
ZB, N.A., a National Banking
Association, dba California Bank
& Trust
Defendant.
19
20
21
ZIONS BANCORPORATION, N.A., a
National Banking Association,
formerly known as ZB, N.A., dba
California Bank & Trust,
22
23
24
25
26
27
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
MOTION TO BE DESIGNATED AS
INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL
Plaintiffs,
15
16
No. 2:17-cv-01123-WBS-DB
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
JTS COMMUNITIES, INC., a
California Corporation; LARRY A.
CARTER, an individual; JACK T.
SWEIGART, an individual; and
BRISTOL INSURANCE COMPANY, a
dissolved Utah corporation; and
ROES 1-20 inclusive,
28
1
1
Third-Party Defendant.
2
3
4
5
----oo0oo----
6
Plaintiffs, as putative class representatives, allege
7
that the defendant CB & T Bank (formerly known as Zions
8
Bancorporation, N.A.)(“defendant” or “CB & T”) knowingly aided
9
and abetted a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Deepal Wannakuwatte
10
(“Wannakuwatte”) while using his company International
11
Manufacturing Group, Inc. (“IMG”) to defraud investors. (First
12
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Docket No. 42).)
13
plaintiffs’ motion to have Robert L. Brace and Michael P. Denver
14
designated as interim class counsel.
15
Interim Class Counsel”) (Docket No. 71).
16
I.
Before the court is
(“Mot. To Be Designated as
Discussion1
17
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) provides that
18
“the court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a
19
putative class before determining whether to certify the action
20
as a class action.”
21
so “if necessary to protect the interests of the putative class.”
22
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, advisory committee’s notes.
23
“there may be rivalry or uncertainty that makes formal
24
designation of interim counsel appropriate.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3).
The court may do
In some cases,
Id.
The advisory
25
26
27
28
The court previously recited the factual and procedural
background in depth in its order granting defendants’ motions to
dismiss. (See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss at 1–5 (Docket
No. 50).) Accordingly, the court will refrain from doing so
again.
2
1
1
committee notes contemplate that interim counsel may be necessary
2
to ensure that one attorney or firm is responsible for “tak[ing]
3
action to prepare for the certification decision, can “make or
4
respond to motions before certification”, and so that
5
“[s]ettlement may be discussed before certification.”
6
Id.
Plaintiffs contend that the appointment of Brace and
7
Denver as interim class counsel is permitted under Federal Rule
8
of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) and necessary to protect the putative
9
class.
(Mot. To Be Designated as Interim Class Counsel at 6.)
10
However, none of the factors contemplated by the Rule 23 advisory
11
committee’s notes to justify appointing interim counsel appear to
12
apply here.
13
to represent the putative class.
14
Litig., No. 16-cv-00523-RMW, 2016 WL 3401989, at *3 (N. D. Cal
15
June 21, 2016) (denying appointment of interim counsel because
16
“this case does not involve competing lawsuits pending in
17
district court that may be consolidated in the near future, nor
18
is there a gaggle of firms jockeying to be appointed class
19
counsel.”)
20
plaintiffs and putative class since the complaint was filed in
21
2017.
22
perfectly able to make and respond to motions in this case.
23
There is no rivalry here among competing law firms
See In re Seagate Tech. LLC
Indeed, Brace and Denver have represented the named
(See Compl. at 1.)
Brace and Denver have proven to be
Plaintiffs additionally argue that the appointment of
24
Brace and Denver as interim class counsel is needed to prevent
25
defendant from unfairly using depositions of class members in the
26
related JTS litigation in state court to defeat asserted class
27
claims in this action.
28
Counsel at 3.)
(Mot. To Be Designated as Interim Class
However, that argument has been rendered moot.
3
1
Following the parties’ status conference on September 28, 2020,
2
defendant has agreed to (i) permit the use in the present case of
3
all discovery taken in the JTS state court action, (ii) to
4
produce to plaintiffs in this action all documents that they have
5
produced in the JTS action, and (iii) permit plaintiffs’ counsel
6
to attend depositions in the JTS action.
7
(Opp’n. to Mot. at 7.)
Plaintiffs also claim that appointing Brace and Denver
8
as interim class counsel will assist in settling the case.
9
To Be Designated as Interim Class Counsel at 5.)
(Mot.
However, the
10
parties have already retained a mediator and participated in a
11
full day of mediation on August 17, 2020.
12
to Be Designated as Interim Counsel (Docket No. 77) at 6). Thus,
13
it does not appear that interim class certification is necessary
14
to facilitate settlement talks between the parties.
(Opp’n. to Pls.’ Mot.
15
For the first time on reply, plaintiffs contend that if
16
Brace and Denver are not appointed as interim class counsel, they
17
will be barred from contacting other putative class members and
18
being present at or representing them during their depositions.
19
(See Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. at 8 (“Reply”) (Docket No. 79).)
20
They base this contention on Rule 7.3 of the California Rules of
21
Professional Conduct.
22
“by in-person, live telephone, or real-time electronic contact
23
solicit professional employment when a significant motive for
24
doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain, unless the person
25
contacted: 1) is a lawyer or 2) has a family, close personal, or
26
prior professional relationship with the lawyer.”
27
Prof’l Conduct R. 7.3(a).
28
That rule provides that lawyers shall not
Cal. Rules of
Not only was this argument waived because it was raised
4
1
for the first time in plaintiffs’ reply brief, see Bazuaye v.
2
INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996), the argument is also
3
unpersuasive.
4
contacting putative class members by telephone regarding their
5
deposition would constitute solicitation for professional
6
employment motivated by pecuniary gain.
7
case law to support their contention.
8
California Rules of Professional Conduct does not appear to apply
9
to merely contacting and coordinating with putative class members
Plaintiffs have not convinced the court that
Plaintiffs have cited no
Moreover, Rule 7.3 of the
10
by letters or emails.
11
demonstrated that contacting the putative class members in the
12
way contemplated would violate the California Rules of
13
Professional Conduct, the court will not assume that it will.
14
In short, because plaintiffs have not
Accordingly, the court finds that none of plaintiffs’
15
arguments weigh in favor of appointing interim counsel.
16
the appointment of interim class counsel will not prejudice the
17
putative class in any way.
18
designation does not prevent the attorney who filed the action
19
from proceeding in it.
20
interim counsel, an attorney who acts on behalf of the class
21
before certification must act in the best interests of the class
22
as a whole.”
23
the absence of special circumstances warranting appointment of
24
interim class counsel, the court will wait to consider the
25
adequacy of representation and appointment of class counsel until
26
such time as plaintiffs move for class certification.
27
28
Denying
“Failure to make the formal
Whether or not formally designated
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, advisory committee’s notes.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to
appoint Robert L. Brace and Michael P. Denver as interim class
5
In
1
counsel (Docket No. 71) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
2
Dated:
November 5, 2020
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?