Kautsman et al v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC et al

Filing 101

MINUTE ORDER re parties' 99 Stipulated Motion AGREEMENT re Notice of Class Action and Approval of Additional Counsel. With regard to the motion to approve proposed class notice, the parties are ORDERED to apprise the Court, by 7/23/201 9, of the status of their settlement negotiations. With regard to the motion to approve additional class counsel, that motion is GRANTED. The Court finds that Roger Davidheiser and the law firm of Friedman Rubin will adequately represent the class and hereby APPOINTS Mr. Davidhesier of Friedman Rubin as additional class counsel. Authorized by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

NIKOLAY KAUTSMAN, et al.,

10
11
12

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. C16-1940-JCC
ORDER

v.
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
LLC, et al.,

13
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulation and agreement regarding
notice and class counsel (Dkt. No. 99).
With regard to the motion to approve proposed class notice, the parties are ORDERED to
apprise the Court, by July 23, 2019, of the status of their settlement negotiations, and whether the
Court should delay considering the motion to approve the parties’ proposed class notice until it
receives and considers any forthcoming stipulated motion to approve class settlement.
With regard to the motion to approve additional class counsel, that motion is GRANTED.
In appointing class counsel, the Court must consider: (1) “the work counsel has done in
identifying or investigating potential claims in the action;” (2) “counsel’s experience in handling
class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;” (3)
“counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law;” and (4) “the resources that counsel will commit to

ORDER
C16-1940-JCC
PAGE - 1

1
2

representing the class[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A).
The parties propose Roger Davidheiser and the law firm of Friedman Rubin as additional

3

class counsel in this case. (See Dkt. No. 99.) Mr. Davidheiser and Friedman Rubin are

4

experienced in handling class actions. (See id. at 3.) Mr. Davidheiser is knowledgeable in the

5

applicable law in this case because he has tried numerous complex cases and has previously been

6

lead class counsel. (See id. at 3–4.) Friedman Rubin is able to commit substantial resources to

7

this class action. (Id. at 3.) And although Mr. Davidheiser and Friedman Rubin have not done as

8

much work as current class counsel identifying and investigating potential claims in this action,

9

adding additional class counsel in this case seems particularly appropriate given the struggles of

10

Plaintiffs’ current counsel previously identified by the Court. (See Dkt. No. 89 at 7.) Finally, all

11

parties agree that Mr. Davidheiser and Friedman Rubin would serve as adequate additional class

12

counsel. (Id. at 5.) Therefore, the Court finds that Roger Davidheiser and the law firm of

13

Friedman Rubin will adequately represent the class and hereby APPOINTS Mr. Davidhesier of

14

Friedman Rubin as additional class counsel.

15

DATED this 22nd day of July 2019.

A

16
17
18

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C16-1940-JCC
PAGE - 2