Adams County Board of County Commissioners v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:21-cv-09107
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Adams County v. McKinsey, Judge Breyer reclassified two mislabeled intervention motions as separate civil cases and denied one fee motion as moot.
The order affected Ms. Isaacs and Ms. Ecke et al., whose filings were reclassified as separate civil actions, as well as the Adams County member case and its Clerk’s Office. Ms. Ecke’s request to waive PACER fees was denied as moot.
What happened
Adams County Board of County Commissioners v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. involved two filings labeled as motions to intervene in the Adams County case. Both were filed by people representing themselves, Ms. Isaacs and Ms. Ecke et al.
The court determined that the filings were complaints seeking to bring independent civil actions against McKinsey, not requests to join the Adams County case. The filings did not provide grounds for intervention, and the court noted that the Adams County action was brought by political subdivisions rather than individuals.
Judge Charles R. Breyer directed the Clerk to reclassify each filing as the initial filing in a separate civil action and assign each action a civil case number. He also directed Lead Counsel to contact the litigants and assist them in finding representation if they wanted it. The court denied Ms. Ecke’s motion to waive fees for access to the court’s electronic records system as moot.
The detailed version
- Adams County Board of County Commissioners v. McKinsey and Company, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-09107
- Charles Breyer
- Feb. 16, 2024
Background
This order concerned two pending filings in the member case, docket numbers 6 and 7. Each filing was labeled a motion to intervene and used the docket number for the Adams County case. Both were filed by pro se litigants, meaning people representing themselves: Ms. Isaacs and Ms. Ecke et al.
Court’s Analysis
The court construed the filings liberally because they were submitted by pro se litigants. It concluded that the litigants appeared to intend to file independent civil actions against McKinsey and likely used the label “motions to intervene” because they wanted their cases associated with the McKinsey multidistrict litigation. The court noted that the Adams County case was brought by political subdivisions, that the Ohio subdivision plaintiffs did not appear to have a relationship with these litigants, and that the filings did not provide the grounds for intervention required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c). The court characterized the filings as complaints against McKinsey.
Ruling
The court directed the Clerk to reclassify each motion to intervene as an initial filing in a separate civil action and to assign a civil case number to each action. Lead Counsel was directed to contact the litigants using the information in their filings and assist them in finding representation if they desired it. The court also denied as moot the Administrative Motion to Waive PACER Fees filed by Ms. Ecke. The order did not decide the merits of the complaints against McKinsey.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.