The opinion
1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5 SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7 KEVIN MOORE, et al., Case No. 23-cv-05011-BLF
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER APPOINTING INTERIM
9 v. CLASS COUNSEL
10 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., [Re: ECF No. 24]
et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint Capstone Law APC (“Capstone”) and
14 Berger Montague PC (“Berger”) as interim class counsel in this dispute concerning a defect
15 affecting certain Honda vehicles. See ECF No. 24 (“Mot.”). Defendants have filed a statement
16 that they do not oppose the relief requested in the motion. See ECF No. 25. For the following
17 reasons, the Court GRANTS this unopposed motion.
18 “Pursuant to Rule 23(g)(3), the court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a
19 putative class before determining whether to certify a class.” In re Seagate Tech. LLC Litig., No.
20 16-CV-00523-RMW, 2016 WL 3401989, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2016). “Although Rule
21 23(g)(3) does not provide a standard for appointment of interim counsel, courts typically look to
22 the factors used in determining the adequacy of class counsel under Rule 23(g)(1)(A).” Id. These
23 factors are:
24
(1) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action;
25 (2) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types
of claims asserted in the action;
26 (3) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and
(4) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.
27
1 ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B).
2 || The appointment of interim class counsel is discretionary and particularly suited to complex
3 actions. In re Seagate Tech. LLC Litig., 2016 WL 3401989, at *2.
4 Here, the proposed interim class counsel have sufficiently demonstrated that they have
5 dedicated substantial resources to pursuing this case. In particular, proposed interim class counsel
6 || have devoted considerable time and resources over the past three years to investigating and
7 || litigating Browning v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 20-cv-05417-BLF (N.D. Cal. 2020), which
8 || brought claims nearly identical to those in this case and which the Court consolidated into this
9 case. See ECF No. 19 (order consolidating cases). Proposed interim class counsel have also
10 sufficiently demonstrated that they have experience litigating complex class actions and are
11 knowledgeable about the applicable law given their extensive experience as plaintiff-side class
12 counsel in similar automobile defect cases. See ECF No. 24-2 (Capstone Resume); ECF No. 24-4
5 13 (Berger Resume). Finally, proposed interim class counsel have satisfied the Court that they will
14 || commit sufficient intellectual and financial resources to represent the class. Mot. at 13.
3 15 || Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion and APPOINTS Capstone Law APC and
16 || Berger Montague PC as interim class counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20 Dated: February 7, 2024
ETH LABSON FREEMAN
22 United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28