GALICKI et al v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
Filing
66
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 10/6/2014. (nr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ZACHARY GALICKI, et al.,
OPINION
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 14-169 (JLL)
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Defendants.
GW CAR SERVICE, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
Defendants.
LINARES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of the Galicki Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint
the Law Offices of Rosemarie Arnold as interim class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(g) [Entry No. 63], and the GW Car Service Plaintiffs’ opposition and cross-motion
to appointment the Epstein Law Firm, P.A. as interim class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)
[Entry No. 65]. The Court has considered both motions. No oral argument was heard. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 78. Based on the reasons that follow, the Galicki Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint the Law
Offices of Rosemarie Arnold as interim class counsel is denied and the GW Car Service
1
Plaintiffs’ cross-motion to appoint the Epstein Law Firm, P.A. as interim class counsel is
granted.
BACKGROUND
The Galicki Plaintiffs and GW Car Service Plaintiffs have filed proposed class action
complaints asserting numerous claims sounding in tort as against the State of New Jersey,
Governor Christopher (“Chris”) Christie, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (and
several of its employees), and other state officials.
Plaintiffs’ claims—which are brought on
behalf of a putative class (or classes)—arise out of the closure of multiple lanes of traffic to the
George Washington Bridge from September 9, 2013 through September 13, 2013.
On August 19, 2014, Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson entered an Opinion and Order
granting the Galicki Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to consolidate Civil Action No. 14-169 (the
Galicki action) with 14-1319 (the GW Car Service action) and denying, without prejudice, the
Galicki Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a consolidated amended pleading. Currently before
the Court is the Galicki Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint the Law Offices of Rosemarie Arnold as
interim class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) [Entry No. 63], and the
GW Car Service Plaintiffs’ opposition and cross-motion to appoint the Epstein Law Firm, P.A.
as interim class counsel [Entry No. 65].
LEGAL STANDARD
A court may also “designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before
determining whether to certify the action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). In so
designating, a Court looks to the factors as set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1)
2
(A) and (B), namely: “(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential
claims in the action; (ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation,
and the types of claims asserted in the action; (ii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and
(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.” See, e.g., Waudby v.
Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, 248 F.R.D. 173, 175–76 (D.N.J. 2008); In re Air Cargo Shipping
Servs. Antitrust Litig., 240 F.R.D. 56, 57 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). In light of these factors, the Court
must decide which candidate is best qualified, holding dispositive no single factor. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(g)(2)(B).
DISCUSSION
The Court agrees that appointment of interim class counsel in this matter will promote
efficiency and avoid delay in the progress of these consolidated purported class actions.1 Based
on the record before the Court, it appears that the Law Offices of Rosemarie Arnold and The
Epstein Law Firm, P.A. each possess the requisite knowledge and resources to adequately and
fairly represent the class. Both have expended countless hours in identifying and/or investigating
potential claims in the action. Certainly, both have impressive credentials and the underlying
qualifications to serve as lead counsel.
Nevertheless, the Court finds that The Epstein Law Firm has made a stronger showing
under Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(ii) (“counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex
litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action.”). In particular, while the Court notes
The Court notes that neither the Law Offices of Rosemarie Arnold nor The Epstein Law Firm,
P.A. has expressed a willingness to work together as co-interim class counsel in this matter. See,
e.g., In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litig., 2012 WL 5833604, at *1 (D.
Del. Nov. 16, 2012) (“The court recognizes that the appointment of co-lead counsel may be
appropriate where the magnitude of the class action justifies the pooling of resources and
experience.”).
3
1
that the Law Offices of Rosemarie Arnold is highly experienced—and successful—in
representing plaintiffs in a variety of personal injury matters, there is no indication from the
papers submitted that said law firm has any experience in instituting and/or litigating class
actions or mass tort claims. By contrast, The Epstein Law Firm has experience in representing
both plaintiffs and objectors in class actions filed in state and federal courts. See, e.g., Barry
Epstein Cert., ¶¶ 11-15; Michael Epstein Cert., ¶¶ 3-5. The Epstein Law Firm also has some
multidistrict mass tort litigation experience. See, e.g., Barry Epstein Cert., ¶ 15. Given that both
complaints in this consolidated matter are brought on behalf of putative classes (and subclasses)
of individuals and businesses, the Court finds that counsel’s experience in handling class actions
is a particularly significant factor in the context of this case.
Thus, while three of the four factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1)(A) would support either
group of attorneys, the Court finds that The Epstein Firm’s experience in litigating class actions
and mass tort claims renders it most qualified to further the interests of all putative class
members in this consolidated matter. See, e.g., Boggs v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 286 F.R.D.
621, 624 (W.D. Okla. 2012) (“While both KTMC and Zamansky have done excellent work in
identifying and investigating potential claims in their respective ERISA actions and have
committed and will commit the resources necessary to represent the class, the Court finds
KTMC’s experience in ERISA class actions and knowledge of the applicable law exceeds that of
Zamansky to such a degree that this Court finds that KTMC should be appointed interim class
counsel.”). Accordingly, the Court will appoint The Epstein Law Firm as Interim Class Counsel
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
4
CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons set forth above, the Galicki Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint the Law
Offices of Rosemarie Arnold as interim class counsel is denied and the GW Car Service
Plaintiffs’ cross-motion to appoint the Epstein Law Firm, P.A. as interim class counsel is
granted.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
s/ Jose Linares
Jose L. Linares
United States District Judge
Date: October 6, 2014
5
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?