LeBlanc v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al

Filing 28

ORDER : Plaintiffs motion to appoint interim co-counsel is DENIED without prejudice to refile should the circumstances described above change. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 8/29/2014. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROGER JEAN LeBLANC, Individually and
on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

CIVIL ACTION

VS.

NO. 14-201-SDD-RLB
C/W 14-218-SDD-RLB

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, ET AL.

This Order pertains to all cases

ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ joint motion to appoint interim class counsel on behalf of
the putative class in these consolidated cases pursuant to Rule 23(g)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. (R. Doc. 9). 1 The motion is unopposed. For the reasons discussed below, the
motion is denied without prejudice.
Rule 23(g)(3) states: “The court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a
putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.” Generally,
courts will appoint interim class counsel only in the event that there are “a number of
overlapping, duplicative, or competing suits pending in other courts, and some or all of those
suits may be consolidated,” with multiple attorneys vying for class counsel appointment. Federal
Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.11 (4th ed. 2004); accord Deangelis v.
Corzine, 286 F.R.D. 220, 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“The designation of interim class counsel is
especially encouraged in cases ... where there are multiple, overlapping class actions that require
extensive pretrial coordination.”) (quoting In re LIBOR–Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig.,
2011 WL 5980198, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2011)); In re Bank of Am. Corp. Sec. Derivative &
1

The district judge granted the Plaintiffs’ requested consolidation of the two actions but
referred the motion to the extent it sought the entry of an Initial Case Management Order and the
appointment of interim class counsel to the magistrate judge. (R. Doc. 18).

ERISA Litig., 258 F.R.D. 260, 271–74 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (appointing interim class counsel). In
such circumstances, the appointment of interim class counsel can be a valuable casemanagement tool that also helps safeguard the interests of the class. Manual for Complex
Litigation § 21.11. “If the lawyer who filed the suit is likely to be the only lawyer seeking
appointment as class counsel, appointing interim class counsel may be unnecessary.” Id.
In the motion, the parties represent that the entry of an order pursuant to Rule 23(g)(3)
will “get the consolidated matter firmly rooted for efficient prosecution.” (R. Doc. 9-1 at 4).
They propose that these attorneys will coordinate discovery and other pretrial proceedings on
behalf of the plaintiffs. The proposed attorneys to serve as interim co-lead class counsel,
however, are the same as those in the two consolidated cases. 2 There are no other parallel cases
involving any other named plaintiffs or any other attorneys. Accordingly, there are no
overlapping, duplicative or competing suits that might be consolidated with this action at this
time. The attorneys in these consolidated cases are working jointly and intend to continue to do
so. There are currently no competing counsel whose roles might complicate the efficient
management of this case or result in duplicative attorney work.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion to appoint interim co-counsel
is DENIED without prejudice to refile should the circumstances described above change.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 29, 2014.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Eric J. O’Bell, O’Bell Law Firm, LLC; John H Smith, Smith Shanklin Sosa, LLC;
Daniel E. Becnel Jr., Becnel Law Firm LLC; and Salvadore Christina, Jr., Becnel Law Firm
LLC.