Good et al v. Etowah River Terminal, L.L.C. et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pursuant to the joint motion to consolidate related cases and to appoint interim lead counsel, directing that the Strickland matter, civil action 2:14-11009, is added to the consolidation ordered 4/18/2014 in the related- to actions for purposes of adjudicating the consolidated motion for remand; counsel are directed to make all further filings in the Strickland matter in the lead action of Desimone Hospitality Services, Civil Action No. 2:14-14845, with the Stricklan d case being otherwise stayed pending the further order of the court; the Crystal Good (Civil Action No. 2:14-01374), Lori Good (Civil Action No. 2:14-11011), Johnson (Civil Action No. 2:14-13164), and Fields (Civil Action No. 2:14-13454) cases are c onsolidated for all case events up to and including the conclusion of discovery, at which time the court will consider further efforts to coordinate and streamline the litigation; the Crystal Good matter, Civil Action No. 2:14-01374, is designated as the lead case, with all further filings to be captioned and docketed in that case pending the further order of the court; counsel are directed to consult and file by 6/20/2014, a consolidated class action complaint, to which the defendants will resp ond by 7/20/2014; granting the 7 JOINT MOTION to consolidate, to the extent stated and set forth more fully herein, and otherwise denying said motion; granting the 7 motion to appoint interim lead counsel; Kevin Thompson, Stuart Calwell, and Van Bunch are appointed as interim class counsel pending the further order of the court, with authorization to exercise the authority sought supra. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 6/3/2014. (cc: attys; liaison counsel, Desimone Hospitality Services, LLC v. West Virginia American Water Co., 2:14-14845 (S.D. W. Va.): Anthony J. Majestro, Guy Bucci, Benjamin L. Bailey, Scott E. Schuster, William F. Dobbs, Jr.) (taq)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
CRYSTAL GOOD, as parent and next friend
of minor children M.T.S., N.T.K. and A.M.S.,
MELISSA JOHNSON and LINDSAY HUFFMAN and
ALADDIN RESTAURANT, INC.,
GEORGIA HAMRA and JOHN SARVER,
d/b/a MOUSIE’S CAR WASH, and
NITRO CAR CARE CENTER, LLC., and
CAROLYN BURDETTE and
COLOURS SALON AND BOUTIQUE, LLC,
on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs
v.
Civil Action No. 2:14-01374
AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., and
AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, INC., and
CHEMSTREAM, INC., and
EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, and
J. CLIFFORD FORREST and
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES, LLC, and
WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, and
MOUNTAINEER FUNDING, LLC, and
WV FUNDING, LLC,
ROGER STRICKLAND and ANGEL STRICKLAND and
NEWTECH SYSTEMS, INC., and RACHEL BLAKENSHIP and
MICHAEL BRYANT and CHRISTIAN BRYANT and
JOHN MICHAEL BRYANT and HELEN CHRIST and
TIANA ALLEN and CHRISTOPHER ALLEN and
JOCELYN ALLEN and GARIETH ALLEN and SABRA ALLEN,
Minors, By and Through Their Parents and Next
Friends, TIANA ALLEN and CHRISTOPHER ALLEN and
ANDREA LUPSON and JON LUPSON and
Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-11009
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES, INC., and
AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC.,
d/b/a/ WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, and
EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY and
CORPORATE JOHN DOES 1-6, and
INDIVIDUAL JOHN DOES 7-10,
Defendants
LORI GOOD and JESSICA GOOD and
KATHLEEN HARDIN an individual and
as next friend for her minor child,
EMILYNN HARDIN and BRITTANY WILLIAMS,
an individual and as next friend for her
minor children, FRANK WALKER and JULIAN WALKER and
BRANDI SMITH, an individual and as next friend for her minor
children BRADLEY DINGESS and TERRY SMITH and
HANNAH SMITH and MICA GREEN an individual and as
next friend for her minor children COLE GREEN and
CHLOEY SWINEY and CAITLAN WILSON an individual
and as next friend for her minor child LILY WILSON and
JACKLYNN BAISDEN an individual and as next friend for her
minor child BRAYLYNN RICHMOND and
TASHA INGRAM an individual and as next friend for her minor
children HANNAH INGRAM and HAYLIE INGRAM and
HUNTER INGRAM and KATELYNN MAYBERRY and
JEREMY VAUGHN and ALEXANDRA SZUHANY and
JOYCE MIDKIFF and JOY GUNNOE WOODRUM and
BRENDA BAISDEN and BRENDA BAISDEN and
R.C. GUNNOE FARMS, LLC, and TASHA INGRAM,
as next friend for her yet to be named
child in utero, ROE 1 and STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:14-11011
ETOWAH RIVER TERMINAL, LLC and
CHEMSTREAM HOLDINGS, INC. and
GARY SOUTHERN and J. CLIFFORD FORREST and
EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY and
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY and
WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY and
2
AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., and
AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, INC., and
DOES ONE THROUGH 60, inclusive,
Defendants.
SUMMER JOHNSON and ROBERT JOHNSON,
individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:14-13164
WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY and
AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC. and
AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, INC. and
EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,
Defendants.
MADDIE P. FIELDS,
individually and on behalf of
a class of persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:14-13454
WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY and
AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC. and
AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, INC. and
EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending in civil action 2:14-1374 (“Crystal Good”) is
plaintiffs’ joint motion to consolidate related cases and to
appoint interim lead counsel, filed March 28, 2014.
3
Pending in
civil action 2:14-11011 (“Lori Good”) is plaintiffs’ joint
motion to consolidate related cases and to appoint interim lead
counsel, filed March 31, 2014.
Pending in civil action 2:14-
13164 (“Johnson”) is plaintiffs’ joint motion to consolidate
related cases and to appoint interim lead counsel, filed March
31, 2014.
No motions pend in civil action 2:14-13454
(“Fields”).
Pending in civil action 2:14-11009 (“Strickland”) are
plaintiffs’ motion to remand, filed March 26, 2014, and a motion
filed by plaintiffs on May 12, 2014, that seeks to defer action
on the joint motions above to consolidate related cases and
appoint interim lead counsel -- until the court rules on all
outstanding remand motions (“motion to continue”).1
The joint motions to consolidate related cases and to
appoint interim lead counsel are materially identical.
1
The plaintiffs in Strickland assert that the court should
first rule on the pending remand motion in that case prior to
selecting interim lead counsel. The motion to continue, which
spans a single page, does not articulate grounds of sufficient
strength to justify the delay requested. The court ORDERS that
the motion to continue be, and hereby is, denied.
4
I.
Freedom Industries, Inc. (“Freedom”), is a West
Virginia corporation engaged primarily in the production of
specialty chemicals for the mining, steel, and cement
industries.
It is also a leading supplier of freeze
conditioning agents, dust control palliatives, flotation
reagents, water treatment polymers, and other specialty
chemicals.
Freedom operates two production facilities in West
Virginia, namely, in Nitro (“Nitro Facility”) and Charleston
(“Charleston Facility”).
On January 9, 2014, a leak occurred in one of
Freedom’s storage tanks located at the Charleston Facility.
On
January 17, 2014 (“Petition Date”), Freedom petitioned in this
district for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United
States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101.
As a result of the leak, the Crystal Good, Johnson,
and Fields cases were filed here respectively on January 13,
March 25, and March 28, 2014 (jointly herein as “the original
jurisdiction cases”).
The Lori Good and Strickland cases were
removed from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on February 24,
2014 (jointly herein as “the removal jurisdiction cases”).
These five cases are all pled as class actions.
5
Subject matter jurisdiction in the Crystal Good action
is based upon the presence of certain federal questions and the
Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).
The Johnson and Fields
cases appear to rely exclusively on CAFA grounds for subject
matter jurisdiction.
The Lori Good and Strickland cases were
removed based upon CAFA and related-to jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1334(b).
In addition to these five putative class actions, on
February 21 and 22, 2014, Freedom removed to the bankruptcy
court certain other state actions in which it was named a
defendant.
On February 24, 2014, West Virginia American Water
Company (“WVAWC”) did likewise in certain state actions in which
it was named but Freedom was not.
These two removals resulted
in 57 cases (“related-to jurisdiction cases”) being referred to
the bankruptcy court.
On April 16, 2014, the court withdrew the references
of the related-to jurisdiction cases.
On April 18, 2014, the
court consolidated the related-to jurisdiction cases for
purposes of briefing and resolving the motions to remand that
pend therein.
The case of Desimone Hospitality Services v. West
Virginia American Water Company, civil action 2:14-14845, was
designated as the lead case.
Counsel in the related-to
jurisdiction cases were directed to designate by agreement no
6
more than three of their number from each the plaintiff and the
defendant sides to serve as liaison counsel for purposes of
consultations designed to lead to a proposed stipulated briefing
schedule producing a single set of omnibus briefs addressing all
of the arguments for remand found in the individual pending
remand motions.
The factual allegations in all of the cases arise from
the alleged leak.
According to Freedom, the related-to
jurisdiction cases harbor claims that consist of one or more of
four categories as follows: (a) physical personal injury tort
claims, such as bodily injury, emotional distress and/or
requests for medical monitoring to detect bodily injury in the
future; (b) non-physical personal injury tort claims, such as
annoyance, loss of enjoyment, nuisance and inconvenience; (c)
property-related claims, such as trespass, property damage, and
loss of use of property; and (d) financial claims, such as lost
income or loss-of-business claims.
The plaintiffs in the
related-to jurisdiction cases have not disputed that
characterization.2
2
The court notes the April 29, 2014, filing of a statement
by counsel for the plaintiff in a related-to jurisdiction
putative class action styled Brogan vs. West Virginia Water
Company, civil action 2:14-14890. The Brogan matter was
initiated to recover the sewage fees paid by WVAWC customers as
a result of the flushing process designed to restore clean water
to affected customers. While counsel for Mr. Brogan asserts his
7
Following a review of the class action complaint in
the Lori Good matter, the class action amended complaint in the
Strickland matter, the first amended class action complaint in
the Crystal Good case, the second amended complaint in the
Johnson matter, and the complaint in the Fields matter, the
original jurisdiction and removal jurisdiction cases may be said
to generally fall into one or more of the same four categories
set out above.
II.
A.
Consolidation
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides as
follows:
(a) Consolidation. If actions before the court involve
a common question of law or fact, the court may:
(1) join for hearing or trial any or all
matters at issue in the actions;
(2) consolidate the actions; or
action “stands apart” from the remaining 56 related-to
jurisdiction cases, he seeks on behalf of his putative class
“compensatory and punitive damages, including without limitation
reimbursement for each member of the class for sewage and/or
sanitary bills, other economic loss, and punitive damages in an
amount to be determined . . . .” (Compl. WHEREFORE Cl. at 12).
This claim for relief is not so distinct as to justify limited
deconsolidation and severance of the case from the remaining
related-to jurisdiction cases, nor is that relief sought.
8
(3) issue any other orders to avoid
unnecessary cost or delay.
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 42(a).
Our court of appeals affords broad discretion to
district courts in assessing the desirability of consolidation,
recognizing the superiority of the trial court in determining
how best to structure similar pieces of litigation.
See A/S J.
Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Const. Co., 559 F.2d 928,
933 (4th Cir. 1977) (“District courts have broad discretion
under F.R.Civ.P. 42(a) to consolidate causes pending in the same
district.”).
It has, however, provided guidelines for
exercising that discretion.
See Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines,
Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 1982).
Those guidelines
essentially balance the specific risks of prejudice and possible
confusion with the potential for inconsistent adjudications of
common factual and legal issues and the burden on available
judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits.
Id. at 193.
Efficiency from a time and cost perspective are also considered.
Id.
The risk of inconsistent adjudications, substantial
expense to the parties, and inefficient use of court resources
markedly increases here if the court declines consolidation at
least to some extent.
Respecting the Strickland matter, the
9
grounds for subject matter jurisdiction bear a similarity to
those alleged in the related-to jurisdiction cases.
It is thus
sensible to add the Strickland matter to that existing
consolidation for purposes of adjudicating the consolidated
motion for remand.
The Strickland case is added as a member
action thereto and will proceed according to the coordinated and
consolidated briefing order entered therein.
To the extent that
the Strickland briefing covers matters in addition to the
coordinated and consolidated briefing, the court will address
those arguments in due course.
All further filings in the Strickland matter will be
made in the Desimone Hospitality Services matter pending the
further order of the court.
It is ORDERED that the Strickland
case be, and hereby is, otherwise stayed pending the further
order of the court.
Respecting the Crystal Good, Lori Good, Johnson, and
Fields cases, the court has reviewed the operative pleadings.
The claims asserted are not identical.
There is, however,
overlap to some extent, with both negligence and strict
liability claims being alleged in all four actions.
damages are also sought in each case.
Punitive
Further, the common trunk
from which all branches of the alleged claims spring is the leak
and the consequences flowing therefrom.
10
Under these circumstances, consolidation of these four
actions is appropriate.
It is, accordingly, ORDERED that the
Crystal Good, Lori Good, Johnson, and Fields cases be, and
hereby are, consolidated for all case events up to and including
the conclusion of discovery, at which time the court will
consider further efforts to coordinate and streamline the
litigation.
It is further ORDERED that the joint motion to
consolidate be, and it hereby is, granted to the extent stated
above and otherwise denied.
It is additionally ORDERED that the
Crystal Good matter be, and hereby is, designated as the lead
case, with all further filings to be captioned and docketed in
that case pending the further order of the court and with
counsel directed to consult and file therein no later than June
20, 2014, a consolidated class action complaint, to which the
defendants will respond on or before July 20, 2014.
B.
Appointment of Interim Class Counsel
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) covers the
matter of appointing class counsel.
The Rule explicitly
addresses an interim appointment: “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.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3).
The interim appointment may produce
11
significant benefits in terms of coordinating the litigation in
the pre-certification context.
Rule 23(g) provides pertinently as follows concerning
the standards governing the appointment of class counsel
generally:
(1) Appointing Class Counsel. Unless a statute
provides otherwise, a court that certifies a class
must appoint class counsel. In appointing class
counsel, the court:
(A) must consider:
(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;
(B) may consider any other matter pertinent to
counsel's ability to fairly and adequately
represent the interests of the class;
(C) may order potential class counsel to provide
information on any subject pertinent to the
appointment and to propose terms for attorney's
fees and nontaxable costs;
12
(D) may include in the appointing order
provisions about the award of attorney's fees or
nontaxable costs under Rule 23(h); and
(E) may make further orders in connection with
the appointment.
(2) Standard for Appointing Class Counsel. When one
applicant seeks appointment as class counsel, the
court may appoint that applicant only if the applicant
is adequate under Rule 23(g)(1) and (4). If more than
one adequate applicant seeks appointment, the court
must appoint the applicant best able to represent the
interests of the class.
. . . .
(4) Duty of Class Counsel. Class counsel must fairly
and adequately represent the interests of the class.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
The Advisory Committee notes provide that interim
class counsel may be appointed “if necessary to protect the
interests of the putative class,” and may be appropriate in
cases of “rivalry or uncertainty.”
Id.
Any attorney acting on
behalf of the class “must act in the best interests of the class
as a whole.” Id.; Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice &
Procedure § 1802.3 (3d. elec. 2014).
The court has studied the requested appointment and
the respective qualifications of the lawyers proposed to serve
in the interim capacity.
As noted, the motion pends in the
Crystal Good, Lori Good, and Johnson matters.
13
The movant
lawyers seek appointment of Kevin Thompson, Stuart Calwell, and
Van Bunch as interim class counsel.
The movants in those three
actions, and the Fields case, are as follows:
Crystal Good
Kevin Thompson -– Charleston, West Virginia
David R. Barney, Jr. -- Charleston, West Virginia
Van Bunch -- Phoenix, Arizona
Sean Cassidy -- New Orleans, Louisiana
Michael Stag –- New Orleans, Louisiana
Stephen H. Wussow –- New Orleans, Louisiana
Stuart H. Smith –- New Orleans, Louisiana
P. Rodney Jackson – Charleston, West Virginia
Lori Good
John Patrick L. Stephens -- Huntington, West Virginia
Mark F. Underwood -- Huntington, West Virginia
M. Timothy Koontz -- Williamson, West Virginia
Johnson
Stuart Calwell -- Charleston, West Virginia
Alexander D. McLaughlin -- Charleston, West Virginia
D. Christopher Hedges -- Charleston, West Virginia
Fields
Michael J. Del Giudice -- Charleston, West Virginia
Timothy J. LaFon -- Charleston, West Virginia
Despite the fact that the motion pends only in the
Crystal Good, Lori Good, and Johnson matters, the movants list
Crystal Good, Lori Good, Johnson, Fields, Strickland, and,
additionally, a pro se matter, the Thompson case, and state that
“[t]his motion is brought jointly by counsel in the above-listed
matters, except” Strickland and Thompson.
in original).
(Mot. at 2 (emphasis
Movants request the following appointment
authority:
(a) To make all work assignments on behalf of
Plaintiffs in such a manner as to promote the orderly
and efficient conduct of this litigation and to avoid
unnecessary duplication and expense;
14
(b) To supervise and monitor the activities of
Plaintiffs' counsel and to implement procedures to
ensure that unnecessary expenditures are avoided;
(c) To determine and present in pleadings (including
any consolidated amended complaint considered
appropriate by the Court), motions, briefs, oral
argument or such other fashion as may be appropriate
to the Court and opposing parties, the position of the
Plaintiffs as to all matters arising during all
pretrial and trial proceedings;
(d) To conduct or coordinate discovery on behalf of
Plaintiffs consistent with the requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(e) To enter into stipulations with opposing counsel
for the conduct of the litigation;
(f) To sign all papers filed or submitted on behalf of
Plaintiffs;
(g) To conduct all pre-trial, trial and post-trial
proceedings on behalf of Plaintiffs, including the
preparation and presentation of any request for class
certification in this matter;
(h) To employ and consult with experts;
(i) To call and chair regular meetings of Plaintiffs'
counsel;
(j) To conduct settlement negotiations with Defendants
on behalf of Plaintiffs and to add such additional
counsel as Plaintiffs' Interim Lead Class Counsel may
select and organize;
(k) To otherwise coordinate the work of all
Plaintiffs' counsel, and perform such other duties as
the Plaintiffs' Interim Lead Class Counsel deem
necessary or as authorized by further order of the
Court;
(1) To recommend apportionment and allocation of fees
and expenses subject to Court approval; and
15
(m) To have authority over all other matters
concerning the prosecution or resolution of the abovereferenced actions.
(Memo. in Supp. at 6).
The court has reviewed the proposed
lawyers’ qualifications to serve in the role requested.
Mr.
Thompson, Mr. Calwell, and Mr. Bunch possess extensive expertise
and experience in complex litigation in West Virginia and
elsewhere.
They appear well suited for the task.
The court first addresses factors (ii) and (iii) and
the counterpart consideration found in Rule 23(g)(4).
Mr.
Thompson has served as lead class counsel in both federal and
state class actions in West Virginia.
For example, he has
served as lead counsel in two complex West Virginia
environmental cases.
He also served as lead counsel in two
matters docketed with the West Virginia Mass Litigation Panel.
Public Justice named Mr. Thompson and a fellow lawyer among a
group of five nationwide finalists in its Trial Lawyer of the
Year competition in both 2012 and 2013.
In the past five years,
Mr. Thompson has tried five matters in which he represented
plaintiffs joined in a large group.
Since 2002, he has focused
his practice almost exclusively upon environmental law while
prosecuting nine multi-week cases to verdict.
Mr. Calwell possesses an extensive national reputation
for successfully litigating cases involving harmful exposure and
16
injuries from toxic chemicals.
He has over 30 years of
experience litigating complex mass actions.
He distinguished
himself many years ago in an 8-month jury trial before the
undersigned on behalf of workers allegedly injured by exposure
to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ("TCDD") and other toxic
chemicals produced at the former Monsanto chemical plant in
Nitro, West Virginia; and, in the past few years, in a state
court action involving somewhat related claims on behalf of
thousands that has resulted in an exceptional settlement.
He
has represented thousands of West Virginia residents damaged by
mass flooding allegedly resulting from extensive mining and
timbering operations, along with serving on the Prempro Counsel
Governing Committee in the Prempro Products Liability MDL in the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
He has been appointed class
counsel in multiple collective cases in West Virginia.
Mr. Bunch has served as class counsel in class actions
filed over the past 25 years in both state and federal courts.
He has held a supervisory role in various MDL actions such as In
re Polaris Aircraft Income Fund Sec’s. Litig., Williams v.
Yamaha Motor Co., In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Anti-Trust Litig.
He has participated in mass litigation phases within and outside
of West Virginia, including the distribution of billions of
dollars to millions of affected American consumers.
17
Respecting factor (i), the movants and their
respective co~counsel have spent significant monies on expert
assistance and sampling efforts relating to the incident.
In
the early days following the leak, they retained an expert to
assist in characterizing the contamination and its possible
human health effects.
They assert as follows:
These consulting experts include leaders in their
fields in West Virginia and the nation, involving
expertise employed at West Virginia University Medical
Center, the Marshall University school of
environmental sciences and the Wheeling Jesuit
University department of biological sciences. Experts
with a national presence in the fields of toxicology
and water resource management have also been retained
and are currently working on the case.
To date the preliminary results of the work of
these experts were shared not only with other lawyers
and their experts but also with the public to help
shape the public response to the MCHM spill. . . .
In the early days of the crisis, experts working
with Plaintiffs' counsel sampled the water in many
homes and in many areas to identify potential sample
sites to ensure a representative area was sampled to
measure the effects of the entire spill. They also
provided guidance and support in identifying homes for
the teams from the University of South Alabama led by
Dr. Andrew Whelton to sample during their initial work
in the area. Dr. Whelton has since been retained by
the State of West Virginia to conduct scientific
studies related to a number of issues including
adsorption to pipes, odor threshold and tap water
concentrations.
(Memo. in Supp. at 9-10).
The movants also list additional
steps taken in this regard.
18
Respecting factor (iv), the movants note that the
prosecution of these cases may “take years and substantial
outlays in expense and counsel time.”
(Id. at 12).
They assert
that they are committed to the task and have a proven “history
of persistenc[e] and success in complex litigation.”
(Id.).
Having considered the applicable factors, and inasmuch
as the motion appears unopposed in all but the Strickland and
Thompson matters, and that those two cases are not being
consolidated with the Crystal Good, Lori Good, Johnson, and
Fields actions, the court ORDERS that the motion to appoint
interim lead counsel be, and hereby is, granted.
It is further
ORDERED that Kevin Thompson, Stuart Calwell, and Van Bunch be,
and hereby are, appointed as interim class counsel pending the
further order of the court, with authorization to exercise the
authority sought supra.
III.
Based upon the foregoing discussion, it is ORDERED as
follows:
1.
That the Strickland matter be, and hereby is, added to
the consolidation ordered April 18, 2014, in the
related-to actions for purposes of adjudicating the
consolidated motion for remand;
19
2.
That counsel be, and hereby are, directed to make all
further filings in the Strickland matter in the lead
action of Desimone Hospitality Services, with the
Strickland case being otherwise stayed pending the
further order of the court;
3.
That the Crystal Good, Lori Good, Johnson, and Fields
cases be, and hereby are, consolidated for all case
events up to and including the conclusion of discovery,
at which time the court will consider further efforts
to coordinate and streamline the litigation;
4.
That the Crystal Good matter be, and hereby is,
designated as the lead case, with all further filings
to be captioned and docketed in that case pending the
further order of the court;
5.
That counsel be, and hereby are, directed to consult
and file therein no later than June 20, 2014, a
consolidated class action complaint, to which the
defendants will respond on or before July 20, 2014;
6.
That the joint motion to consolidate be, and it hereby
is, granted to the extent stated above and otherwise
denied;
20
7.
That the motion to appoint interim lead counsel be, and
hereby is, granted; and
8.
That Kevin Thompson, Stuart Calwell, and Van Bunch be,
and hereby are, appointed as interim class counsel
pending the further order of the court, with
authorization to exercise the authority sought supra.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this
written opinion and order to all counsel of record and to the
following individuals designated as liaison counsel in the
consolidated action styled Desimone Hospitality Services, LLC v.
West Virginia American Water Co., 2:14-14845 (S.D. W. Va.).
Anthony J. Majestro
Guy Bucci
Benjamin L. Bailey
Scott E. Schuster
William F. Dobbs, Jr.
DATED: June 3, 2014
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
21
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?