Bayol v. Health-Ade LLC et al

Filing 43

ORDER GRANTING BAYOL PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL; DENYING GONZALEZ PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 23, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 GABRIELA BAYOL, et al., Plaintiffs, 7 8 v. 9 HEALTH-ADE LLC, et al., 10 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California LYNETTE GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 v. HEALTH-ADE LLC, Defendant. 16 Case No. 18-cv-01836-MMC ORDER GRANTING BAYOL PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL; DENYING GONZALEZ PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM COUNSEL Re: Dkt. No. 41 17 18 ORDER GRANTING BAYOL PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL; DENYING GONZALEZ PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM COUNSEL Re: Dkt. No. 33 11 12 Case No. 18-cv-01462-MMC Before the Court are two motions, each filed in one of the above-titled related 19 actions: (1) "Motion for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel," filed June 28, 2018, by 20 the plaintiffs in Bayol v. Health-Ade, LLC ("Bayol Plaintiffs"), by which said plaintiffs seek 21 an order appointing their counsel of record as interim class counsel for both cases; and 22 (2) "Motion for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel," filed July 12, 2018, by the plaintiffs 23 in Gonzalez v. Health-Ade, LLC ("Gonzalez Plaintiffs"), by which said plaintiffs seek an 24 order appointing their counsel of record as interim class counsel for both cases. The 25 motions have been fully briefed. Having read and considered the parties' respective 26 written submissions, the Court rules as follows.1 27 1 28 By order filed August 21, 2018, the Court took the matters under submission. 1 In each of the above-titled two actions, the plaintiffs allege that certain of the 2 statements made on the labels and/or packaging of defendant Health-Ade LLC's 3 ("Health-Ade") kombucha beverages are false and misleading. Additionally, in each such 4 action, the plaintiffs seek to proceed on behalf of a nationwide class of persons who 5 purchased such products. 6 Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a "court may designate 7 interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify a 8 class." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). In determining whether to appoint an attorney as 9 interim class counsel, the court "must consider: (i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel's experience in 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the 12 action; (iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel 13 will commit to representing the class." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). Additionally, a 14 court "may consider any other matter pertinent to counsel's ability to fairly and adequately 15 represent the interests of the class." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B). 16 Here, as to the first factor, counsel for the Bayol Plaintiffs and counsel for the 17 Gonzalez Plaintiffs, prior to filing a complaint on behalf of their respective clients, each 18 conducted an investigation into Health-Ade's practices (see Fisher Decl. ¶ 7; Grombacher 19 Decl. ¶ 5), counsel in the Bayol Plaintiffs' case identifying a greater number of claims, 20 namely claims based on both the alcohol content and the sugar content of Health-Ade's 21 kombucha products (see Fisher Decl. ¶ 8), and counsel in the Gonzalez Plaintiffs' case, 22 in which the claims are based on sugar content only, identifying a greater number of 23 individuals who could serve as class representatives for potential sub-classes (see 24 Grombacher Decl. ¶¶ 10-11). 25 As to the second factor, although counsel in both cases have extensive 26 experience in handling class actions, counsel for the Bayol Plaintiffs have significant 27 experience in bringing class action lawsuits in which false advertising claims are alleged 28 (see Fisher Decl. ¶ 6), whereas counsel for the Gonzalez Plaintiffs' experience has been 2 1 primarily in connection with class actions alleging unlawful employment practices (see 2 Grombacher Decl. ¶ 28) and privacy violations (see Gonzalez Pls.' Mot. Ex. A at 2). 3 Next, as to the third factor, counsel for the plaintiffs in both cases appear to be 4 generally knowledgeable about the governing law, although, as noted, counsel for the 5 Bayol Plaintiffs have had more experience in cases involving false advertising claims. 6 Further, in that regard, counsel for the Bayol Plaintiffs brought, in 2015, a nationwide 7 class action against another manufacturer of kombucha beverages, which case was 8 based on statements similar to those allegedly made by Health-Ade, and wherein a 9 settlement providing both monetary and injunctive relief was obtained. See Retta v. 10 Millennium Products, Inc., 2017 WL 5479637, *1-3, 11 (C.D. Cal. August 22, 2017). United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Lastly, as to the fourth factor, all counsel have shown they have the resources 12 necessary to effectively represent the putative class members. (See Fisher Decl. ¶¶ 11- 13 13; Grombacher Decl. ¶ 33.) 14 The Court finds that, on balance, the factors identified in Rule 23(g)(1) weigh in 15 favor of appointing counsel for the Bayol Plaintiffs as interim class counsel. In particular, 16 although the Gonzalez Plaintiffs are considerably greater in number than the Bayol 17 Plaintiffs and reflect a wider range of geographic diversity, counsel for the Bayol Plaintiffs 18 have more extensive experience in representing clients in false advertising cases, 19 including a case factually similar to that here, and, in the instant case, have done a 20 considerable amount of prefiling work in an effort to identify and plead potential claims. 21 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above: 22 1. The Gonzalez Plaintiffs' motion is hereby DENIED; 23 2. The Bayol Plaintiffs' motion is hereby GRANTED and Burson & Fisher, P.A. is 24 25 appointed as interim class counsel; and 3. As requested by the Bayol Plaintiffs, the Court orders that Burson & Fisher, 26 P.A. shall be generally responsible for the overall conduct of the litigation on behalf of the 27 putative classes and shall have sole authority to do the following: 28 a. Determine and present to the Court and opposing parties the position of 3 1 the named plaintiffs and putative class members on all matters arising during pretrial 2 proceedings; b. Enter into stipulations with opposing counsel as necessary for the 3 4 conduct of the litigation; c. Coordinate the initiation and conduct of discovery on behalf of the 5 6 named plaintiffs and putative class members consistent with the requirements of the 7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; d. Hire expert witnesses and consultants on behalf of the named plaintiffs 8 9 and putative class members, as needed to prepare for class certification or trial, and advance other costs that may be reasonable and necessary to the conduct of the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 litigation; 12 e. Conduct settlement negotiations on behalf of the named plaintiffs and 13 putative class members, and, if appropriate, to enter into a settlement that is fair, 14 reasonable, and adequate on behalf of the putative class members; 15 16 17 f. Monitor the activities of all counsel to ensure that schedules are met and unnecessary expenditures of time and funds are avoided; and g. Perform such other duties as may be incidental to the proper 18 prosecution and coordination of pretrial activities on behalf of plaintiffs and putative class 19 members or authorized by further order of this Court. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: August 23, 2018 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?