BETURE et al v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA
Filing
36
OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 03/27/2018. (ek)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
ERMIAS BETURE et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
:
AMERICA, INC.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
____________________________________:
Civil Action No. 17-5757 (SRC)
OPINION
CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court on the motion to appoint interim co-lead class
counsel and liaison counsel by Plaintiffs Michelle Barnett, Ermias Beture, Debra Crownover,
Erica Dubose, Emmanuel Ejim, Ezra Getzler, Hugh Holness, Jerry Hung, Corrie Kasal, Derek
Logiudice, Phillip Mitchell, Raymond Page, Elisha Polomski, James Samuelson, and Remigiusz
Zuber (collectively, “Plaintiffs.”) For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1)(A) states the considerations pertinent to the
appointment of lead counsel at the time a class is certified and applies equally to the appointment
of interim lead counsel before certification:
(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;
(iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and
(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class;
Also, Rule 23(g)(1)(B) states that the Court “may consider any other matter pertinent to
counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.”
Plaintiffs contend that the proposed law firms meet the requirements stated in Rule
23(g)(1). Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) opposes the motion,
contending that appointment of interim counsel is unnecessary in a case such as this one, in
which there are no competing counsel. This is unpersuasive: were this Court to deny this
motion, as Samsung advocates, the result would be competing counsel. This Court is persuaded
that it is in the interest of the putative class of Plaintiffs to prevent a competition between
counsel, and to encourage the coordination and cooperation of counsel by granting this motion.
All parties in this case will benefit, as the appointment of interim counsel may streamline the
case and facilitate the case’s progress.
In reply, Plaintiffs aptly point to Magistrate Judge Dickson’s decision under similar
circumstances:
Defendant Volvo Cars of North America, LLC (“Volvo”) does not argue that
Plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements under Rule 23(g)(l)(A). Instead,
Volvo argues that the appointment of interim lead counsel is unnecessary at this
point in litigation. Specifically, Volvo argues that since Plaintiffs and their
counsel have already agreed on a structure to prosecute the case, there is no
rivalry or uncertainty that necessitates the designation of interim lead counsel.
Volvo also argues that the appointment of interim class counsel is inappropriate
because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that there is a possibility that
another similar action will be filed in Federal Court and because certification in
this case is “a highly improbable possibility.”
The Advisory Committee Notes state that “ordinarily [pre-class certification]
work is handled by the lawyer who filed the action. In some cases, however, there
may be rivalry or uncertainty that makes formal designation of interim counsel
appropriate.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(G), Advisory Committee Notes.
Notwithstanding, neither the Advisory Notes nor the Rule provide that “rivalry or
uncertainty” is a requirement for appointment of interim class counsel; rather it is
included as one of several circumstances that may require appointment of interim
class counsel. Id. Accordingly, the fact that Plaintiffs’ counsel have worked
jointly to prosecute this matter on behalf of the Plaintiffs is not dispositive of
2
whether to appoint interim class counsel. In fact, although Plaintiffs' multiple
counsel have cooperated to date during this early pre-certification stage in order
to minimize the amount of lawsuits filed before the Court, appointment of interim
class counsel at this time will ensure continued cooperation amongst said counsel
throughout the pre-certification process, which will serve to protect the interests
of the putative class during that time.
Henderson v. Volvo Cars of North Am., LLC, No. 2:09-cv-4146, op. at 3-4 (D.N.J. Nov. 1,
2010) (internal citations omitted). Magistrate Judge Dickson’s analysis applies with equal force
here.
Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint interim co-lead class counsel and liaison counsel is hereby
granted.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.
Dated: March 27, 2018
3
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?