Rodpracha v. Pongsri Thai Restaurant Corp.

Background

The court had previously ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel, TroyLaw, PLLC (referred to as Troy Law), to explain why the putative class action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), or why the firm should not be found inadequate to represent a class under Rule 23. Troy Law submitted a letter arguing that the Rule 41(b) factors did not support dismissal and that the firm’s work and experience justified its appointment as class counsel.

The court criticized parts of the letter’s account of the case’s procedural history and questioned the firm’s description of its efforts after a September 2020 conference. The court found that the work described in the letter was sporadic rather than “near-constant,” and noted that Troy Law had not submitted time records supporting its assertion. The court also criticized counsel’s filing of draft settlement documents on the public docket, including a redlined draft containing comments that the court assumed were confidential. It further stated that the settlement submissions contained errors of fact and law, inconsistencies, and unclear instructions for members of the Fair Labor Standards Act collective and potential members of the Rule 23 class.

Rulings

The court declined to dismiss the case under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Although it identified numerous performance problems, it found dismissal unduly harsh and gave weight to the existence of less severe alternatives, including restoring the case to the trial calendar or denying Troy Law’s appointment as class counsel.

The court did find that Troy Law was not adequate to represent the proposed class for either settlement or trial. Rule 23 requires adequate representation before a class can be certified, and the court concluded that Troy Law’s performance did not satisfy that requirement. The court therefore stated that, unless substitute class counsel was proposed, it would no longer consider a Rule 23 settlement in the case and would not entertain a motion by Troy Law to certify a class for trial.

The court left open the possibility that Outten & Golden or another firm could seek to join the case and take on the role of class counsel. It said any proposed new counsel would need to submit appropriate materials, including confirmation that the firm was prepared to serve as class counsel, was qualified, and had independently reviewed and was prepared to recommend the proposed settlement, including its attorney-fee provisions.

Next steps and effect

Absent further developments, the court directed that the case proceed to a bench trial on the claims of the named plaintiffs and those who opted into the Fair Labor Standards Act collective. The order set deadlines for joint pretrial submissions and identified dates for the final pretrial conference and trial, while allowing for a remote trial if courthouse social-distancing restrictions remained in place.

The order did not decide the underlying wage claims. It allowed the case to continue, denied dismissal for failure to prosecute, and barred Troy Law from serving as class counsel for settlement or trial unless the court received a proposal involving substitute counsel.