In Re LinkedIn Advertising Metrics Litigation
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:20-cv-08324
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In re LinkedIn Advertising Metrics Litigation: Judge Van Keulen denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request to appoint interim co-lead class counsel.
Plaintiffs TopDevz LLC, Noirefy, Inc., and Synergy RX PBM LLC, the proposed class, the requested law firms, and LinkedIn Corporation were affected by the decision on interim class-counsel appointment. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In re LinkedIn Advertising Metrics Litigation involved Plaintiffs TopDevz LLC and Noirefy, Inc.’s request to appoint Keller Lenkner LLC and Romanucci & Blandin, LLC as temporary joint lawyers for the proposed class. Synergy RX PBM LLC supported the request, while LinkedIn Corporation opposed it.
The court found that the request was not necessary at that time. The two related cases had been consolidated into one action with one complaint, the lawyers had cooperated, and no other related lawsuits or competing lawyers had been identified. The court also concluded that appointing two firms as joint interim counsel would not improve efficiency or clarity.
Judge Susan Van Keulen denied the motion without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to renew it if circumstances materially change.
The detailed version
- In Re LinkedIn Advertising Metrics Litigation · No. 5:20-cv-08324
- Susan Van Keulen
- Apr. 23, 2021
Background
TopDevz LLC and Noirefy, Inc. asked the court to appoint Keller Lenkner LLC and Romanucci & Blandin, LLC as interim co-lead class counsel. Interim class counsel are lawyers appointed to protect a proposed class’s interests before the court decides whether to certify the class. Synergy RX PBM LLC supported the motion, and LinkedIn Corporation opposed it.
The case began as two separate lawsuits against LinkedIn. The court related the cases and later consolidated them for all purposes. The plaintiffs then filed one consolidated complaint. The attorneys for all plaintiffs had cooperated in achieving consolidation and had continued to cooperate afterward.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) allows a district court to appoint interim class counsel before class certification when necessary to protect the proposed class. The appointment is discretionary and is particularly useful when overlapping or competing lawsuits or law firms create uncertainty about responsibility for protecting the class.
Court’s Analysis
The court determined that the case did not warrant interim counsel at that time. There was one consolidated action and one consolidated complaint, and the parties had not identified any other related lawsuits or the possibility that additional attorneys would enter the case. The court also noted that two firms were seeking appointment as co-lead interim counsel. Relying on the principle that efficiency and clarity are better served by appointing one interim counsel, the court concluded that the request for two co-lead firms detracted from the motion.
The court was not persuaded that appointment was needed to prevent rivalry or competing interests. It emphasized the firms’ acknowledgment that they had worked amicably to achieve consolidation and avoid delay. The court found no danger to the proposed class’s interests that appointment of interim counsel would remedy.
Disposition
The court DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE the moving plaintiffs’ motion to appoint interim co-lead class counsel. The plaintiffs may renew the motion if there is a material change in circumstances. The order addressed only the appointment of interim counsel; the opinion does not state that the court decided the merits of the underlying claims against LinkedIn.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.