Wright v. Smart ERP Solutions, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:25-cv-02588
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
Wright v. Smart ERP Solutions: Judge Gilliam denied without prejudice a request to appoint interim class counsel because counsel did not show it was necessary.
The plaintiffs and the proposed class were affected because the requested interim class counsel were not appointed at this stage. The attorneys seeking appointment were also affected by the denial.
What happened
In Wright v. Smart ERP Solutions, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to appoint three attorneys from three law firms as interim counsel for a proposed class before any class-certification decision. The request was unopposed.
The attorneys argued that appointment would help prevent duplicated work. The court found that they were cooperating, appeared to share a unified strategy, and had not identified any current conflict or competing strategy requiring formal appointment.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion without prejudice. He said the attorneys had not shown the special circumstances or concrete need required for appointment at this stage, and he ordered the parties to follow deadlines for a consolidated complaint and the next briefing schedule.
The detailed version
- Wright v. Smart ERP Solutions, Inc. · No. 4:25-cv-02588
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 14, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs applied to appoint three attorneys as interim class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3): Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.; Scott Edward Cole of Cole & Van Note; and John J. Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Philips Grossman, PLLC. The application was unopposed, and the court held a hearing on July 10, 2025.
Interim class counsel may represent a proposed class before the court decides whether to certify the case as a class action. The court explained that the usual considerations include counsel’s work investigating the claims, experience with class actions and similar litigation, knowledge of the applicable law, and available resources. The court may also consider other matters relevant to counsel’s ability to represent the proposed class fairly and adequately.
Court’s Analysis
The court said the attorneys addressed those four considerations but failed to explain why appointing interim counsel was necessary at this stage to protect the proposed class. The attorneys had worked together cooperatively and appeared to have a unified strategy. The court also found that appointment was not needed to address a current conflict among counsel or to clarify their roles.
At the hearing, counsel argued that appointment would prevent duplicated efforts. The court found that counsel had not identified a current dispute or competing strategy and had not concretely explained why they could not coordinate their work without formal appointment. The court viewed the potential for internal conflict or future related cases as speculative and found that the proposed benefit to the class was unclear.
Disposition
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion without prejudice. The court found that counsel had not presented the special circumstances warranting appointment of interim counsel at that stage.
The court also noted that, under an earlier order, the plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint was due within 45 days of this order. Within 10 days after that complaint was filed, the parties were required to submit an agreed briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss or to file an answer to the consolidated complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.