IN RE: S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. WINDEX NON-TOXIC LITIGATION
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-03184
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In In re: S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. Windex Non-Toxic Litigation, Judge Gilliam denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ application to appoint interim class counsel.
Plaintiffs Michelle Moran and Monica Waddell, the four attorneys and firms seeking appointment, and the proposed class in the consolidated Windex litigation.
What happened
In In re: S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. Windex Non-Toxic Litigation, Michelle Moran and Monica Waddell asked the court to appoint four attorneys from four law firms as temporary lawyers for the proposed class before any class-certification decision.
The attorneys addressed the factors courts generally consider when choosing class counsel, including their experience, knowledge, prior work, and available resources. But the court found that they did not show why appointing temporary class counsel was needed to protect the proposed class. The attorneys were cooperating, had a unified strategy, and did not identify a current conflict or uncertainty about their roles.
Judge Gilliam denied the application without prejudice. He also directed the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint within 30 days of the order.
The detailed version
- IN RE: S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. WINDEX NON-TOXIC LITIGATION · No. 4:20-cv-03184
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 15, 2020
Background
Michelle Moran and Monica Waddell applied under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) to appoint interim class counsel. Interim counsel is counsel appointed to act for a proposed class before the court decides whether to certify the case as a class action. The application sought to appoint four attorneys from four law firms: Ryan Clarkson, Christopher Moon, Michael Reese, and Spencer Sheehan.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that interim counsel may be appointed when necessary to protect the interests of the proposed class. Courts generally consider the factors used to evaluate the adequacy of class counsel under Rule 23(g)(1)(A), including:
- work counsel has done identifying or investigating potential claims; - experience with class actions, complex litigation, and the asserted claims; - knowledge of the applicable law; and - resources counsel will commit to representing the class.
The court found that counsel credibly addressed those four factors but did not explain, as a threshold matter, why interim counsel was necessary at this stage. The four firms were working cooperatively and pursuing a unified strategy. Because the firms all sought to represent the plaintiffs together as co-lead counsel, the court found no current conflict requiring interim counsel to clarify their roles.
Counsel also referred to a related state-court action whose settlement discussions might involve at least one Windex product at issue here. The court found that counsel did not explain why that action required appointment of interim counsel. The court noted that the firms could communicate with the lawyers in the state-court case and that, if a settlement were finalized there, plaintiffs could decide whether to opt out. The possibility of future competing firms in similar cases also did not establish a present need for interim counsel.
Disposition
The court concluded that counsel had not shown the special circumstances warranting appointment of interim counsel at that stage. Judge Gilliam DENIED the application without prejudice. The plaintiffs were directed to file a consolidated amended complaint within 30 days of the order, consistent with their stipulation to consolidate the actions. The opinion ruled on the application to appoint interim counsel and did not decide class certification or the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.