In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-04286
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation: Judge Freeman denied without prejudice a request to appoint interim class counsel and vacated the hearing.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs seeking interim counsel, the plaintiffs opposing that request, the proposed class, and the law firms whose appointment was requested.
What happened
In In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation, some plaintiffs asked the court to appoint Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as interim co-lead lawyers for the proposed class. Other plaintiffs opposed the request and asked the court to appoint Gutride Safier LLP instead. The related cases had been consolidated into one action with one consolidated complaint.
The court said interim class counsel is sometimes needed when competing lawsuits or lawyers create uncertainty before a class is certified. But here, the lawyers had worked together successfully after the cases were consolidated, and the court saw no danger to the proposed class that appointing interim counsel would solve. The court also rejected the argument that differences among the plaintiffs required an interim appointment.
Judge Freeman denied the motion without prejudice and vacated the January 14, 2021 hearing on it.
The detailed version
- In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation · No. 5:19-cv-04286
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 14, 2020
Background
The court considered a motion by Asif Kumandan, Melissa Spurr, Melissa Spurr as guardian of B.S., a minor, Lourdes Galvan, and Eleeanna Galvan. They sought appointment of Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as interim co-lead class counsel. Edward Brekhus and Jon Hernandez opposed the motion and alternatively requested appointment of Gutride Safier LLP as interim class counsel.
The moving plaintiffs had filed two separate lawsuits in July 2019, which the court consolidated. Brekhus and Hernandez later filed another complaint, and the court subsequently consolidated that action with the earlier consolidated action. The result was a single consolidated action with a single consolidated complaint.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) allows a district court to appoint interim counsel for a proposed class before deciding whether to certify the class. The court explained that this appointment is discretionary and is particularly useful in complex cases involving overlapping, duplicative, or competing lawsuits or lawyers. The purpose is to clarify responsibility for protecting the proposed class during the period before class certification.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that this case, at its current stage, did not warrant interim class counsel. The attorneys representing the plaintiffs had successfully worked together since the initial consolidation, and the later consolidation had produced one action and one consolidated complaint. The court therefore found no danger to the interests of the proposed class that appointment of interim counsel would remedy.
The court was not persuaded that appointment was necessary to resolve rivalry or uncertainty among the plaintiffs. It noted that the moving plaintiffs first raised that argument in their reply brief. Even considering the argument, the court found that the moving plaintiffs had not explained why the asserted conflict required interim counsel. The court also found that any different claims the Brekhus plaintiffs sought to include were not adverse to the moving plaintiffs or the proposed class.
Disposition
The court denied without prejudice the motion to appoint interim co-class counsel. It also vacated the January 14, 2021 hearing on the motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.