Hernandez v. Path, Inc.

Filing 83

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING ORGANIZATION OF PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL re (352 in 3:13-cv-00453-JST) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER AMONG PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL IN RELATED CASES REGARDING ORGANIZATION OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL IN ALL CASES. Supplemental Briefing due by 10/4/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/15/2013 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on September 16, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARC OPPERMAN, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

PATH, INC., et al.,

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING REGARDING
ORGANIZATION OF PLAINTIFFS’
COUNSEL

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

THIS ORDER RELATES TO ALL CASES

12
Before the Court is the Stipulation Among Plaintiffs’ Counsel in Related Cases Regarding

13
14

Organization of Plaintiffs’ Counsel in All Cases. ECF No. 352. The stipulation seeks the

15

designation of four law firms as co-lead interim class counsel.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1)(A) requires courts to consider the following

16
17

factors in appointing class counsel: “(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating

18

potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex

19

litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable

20

law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.” The stipulation

21

submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel does not address those factors. Consequently, the Court hereby

22

orders Plaintiffs’ counsel to submit supplemental briefing addressing their qualifications to

23

represent the proposed class pursuant to Rule 23(g), and with regard to the factors enumerated in

24

section 21.27 of the Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth (FJC 2004).
Counsel should be aware that the Court is unlikely to appoint four interim co-lead counsel

25
26

in this case, as Plaintiffs’ counsel previously proposed. If Plaintiffs’ counsel propose that more

27

///

28

///

1

than one firm act as interim lead counsel, they shall also address how they intend to limit the

2

duplication of effort on behalf of the proposed class.

3

Counsel’s supplemental briefing shall be filed by October 4, 2013. The Court will hold a

4

hearing on this matter on October 15, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, 450 Golden

5

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 16, 2013

8
9
10

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2