Muniz v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 49

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL; VACATING HEARING DATE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 12/04/2017. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2017)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VICTOR MUNIZ, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10

v.
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-04995-MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL;
VACATING HEARING DATE
Re: Dkt. No. 26

12
13

Before the Court is plaintiff Victor Muniz’s (“Muniz”) “Motion for Appointment of

14

Interim Class Counsel,” filed October 5, 2017. Defendants have filed opposition, to which

15

Muniz replied, after which, with leave of Court, defendants filed a sur-reply. Having read

16

and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court

17

deems the matter appropriate for determination on the parties’ respective written

18

submissions, hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 12, 2018, and rules

19

as follows.

20

Ordinarily, “[w]here there are no competing lawsuits or firms,” courts in this district

21

have denied requests for appointment of interim class counsel. See In re Seagate Tech.

22

LLC Litig., No. 16-cv-00523-RMW, 2016 WL 3401989, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2016)

23

(collecting cases). Here, there are no such competing lawsuits or firms, and Muniz’s

24

concern as to potentially related cases “on the horizon” is too speculative to warrant the

25

relief sought. (See Reply at 4: 8-13 (stating “[n]umerous firms have created websites

26

discussing possible claims relating to the same systematic practice alleged in this

27

action”)); see also In re Nest Labs Litig., No. 14-cv-01363-BLF, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

28

115596, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2014) (denying motion to appoint interim class counsel

1

where plaintiffs “allud[ed] to potential other ‘tag-along’ lawsuits on the horizon,” but failed

2

to “identif[y] any complaints actually filed, let alone any actions that [were] likely to be

3

consolidated with” plaintiffs’ case); In re Seagate Tech. LLC Litig., 16-cv-0523-RMW,

4

2016 WL 3401989, at *4 (finding plaintiffs’ “assertions . . . speculative at best” where

5

plaintiffs “vaguely mention[ed] the possibility of tag-a-long lawsuits and competing firms in

6

the future”).

7

To the extent Muniz argues interim class counsel is necessary to protect putative

8

class members from potentially misleading communications initiated by defendants, such

9

communications can be called to the Court’s attention and addressed, if and when
appropriate, irrespective of whether interim class counsel has been appointed. See Gulf

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 100, 101 (1981) (holding “a district court has both the

12

duty and the broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to enter

13

appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties,” including “limiting

14

communications between parties and putative class members”); Cheverez v. Plains all

15

Am. Pipeline, LP, No. 15-cv-4113-PSG (JEMX), 2016 WL 861107, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar.

16

3, 2016) (recognizing “court’s duty to supervise communications with potential class

17

members exists even before a class is certified”); Eshelman v. OrthoClear Holdings, Inc.,

18

No. 07-cv-01429-JSW, 2007 WL 2572349, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2007) (considering

19

whether defendant’s communication of pre-certification settlement offer was misleading).1

20

Accordingly, Muniz’s motion is hereby DENIED.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: December 4, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

25
26
1

27
28

A review of the docket for Eshelman v. OrthoClear Holdings, Inc., No. 07-cv01429-JSW, reflects no order for appointment of interim class counsel was requested or
made.
2