Oganesyan v. Rakuten USA, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:25-cv-01534
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In re Rakuten Browser Extension Litigation: Judge Gilliam denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ motion to appoint interim class counsel because no special circumstances required appointment.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs and their proposed attorneys in the related Rakuten browser-extension actions, as well as the defendants opposing the appointment. It leaves the proposed class without court-appointed interim counsel at this stage and directs plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint within 45 days.
What happened
In re Rakuten Browser Extension Litigation concerns plaintiffs’ request to appoint three attorneys as interim class counsel and two others to an executive committee before deciding whether to certify a class. Defendants opposed the request.
The court found that the attorneys had worked cooperatively, appeared to share a unified strategy, and identified no live conflicts or disputes requiring interim counsel. The court also questioned whether appointing attorneys from three firms would improve efficiency.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam denied the motion without prejudice because plaintiffs had not shown special circumstances making interim counsel necessary at that stage. Plaintiffs must file a consolidated amended complaint within 45 days of the order.
The detailed version
- Oganesyan v. Rakuten USA, Inc. · No. 4:25-cv-01534
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 16, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs applied under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) to appoint interim class counsel before the court decided whether to certify the case as a class action. They proposed Julian Hammond of HammondLaw, P.C.; Thomas E. Loeser of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP; and Ashley M. Crooks of Hausfeld LLP as interim class counsel. They also proposed David Almeida of Almeida Law Group and Mark S. Reich of Levi & Korsinsky LLP for the plaintiffs’ executive committee. Defendants opposed the motion, and the court held a hearing on July 10, 2025.
Legal standard
Rule 23(g)(3) allows a court to designate interim counsel before class certification when necessary to protect the interests of the proposed class. Courts typically consider the factors used to evaluate whether class counsel would be adequate under Rule 23(g)(1)(A), including:
- The work counsel has done identifying or investigating potential claims;
- Counsel’s experience with class actions, complex litigation, and the asserted claims;
- Counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and
- The resources counsel will commit to representing the class.
The court may also consider other matters relevant to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the class.
Court’s analysis
The court found that plaintiffs’ counsel addressed those four factors but did not first explain why interim counsel was necessary to protect the proposed class at that stage. The attorneys had worked together cooperatively and appeared to share a unified strategy. Because they sought to represent plaintiffs together as co-lead counsel and on an executive committee, the court found no live conflict requiring interim counsel to clarify their roles. Counsel also identified no live disputes during the hearing.
The court questioned whether appointing three attorneys from three different firms would produce efficiency gains. It had allowed counsel an opportunity to submit a supplemental brief explaining the proposed roles and leadership structure, but counsel filed a one-page submission after the deadline. The court found that submission did little to explain the benefits or efficiency of appointing multiple firms as co-lead counsel at that stage.
Disposition
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion without prejudice. The court concluded that counsel had not shown the special circumstances warranting appointment of interim counsel at that stage. The court also directed plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint within 45 days of the order, consistent with the parties’ stipulation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.