Opinion

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 IN RE DEXILANT Case No. 25-cv-02785-JSC

(DEXLANSOPRAZOLE) ANTITRUST

8 LITIGATION

This Document Applies To: ORDER RE: APPLICATION FOR

9 RENEWAL OF INTERIM CO-LEAD

Case. No. 25-cv-2966 COUNSEL STATUS FOR DIRECT

10 PURCHASER CLASS

11 Re: Dkt. No. 188

12

This antitrust lawsuit arises out of a settlement agreement between the manufacturer of

13

protein pump inhibitor Dexilant and a generics manufacturer. Plaintiffs include retailers Walgreen

14

Co., The Kroger Co., Albertsons Companies, Inc., H-E-B, L.P., Supervalu, Inc., and CVS

15

Pharmacy, Inc.1 (“Retailer Plaintiffs”), and a putative class of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs

16

(“DPPs”). (Dkt. Nos. 103, 104; Case No. 25-cv-07646, Dkt. No. 1.)2 On June 13, 2025, the Court

17

appointed Hausfeld LLP (“Hausfeld”) and Roberts Law Firm US, PC (“Roberts”) interim co-lead

18

counsel for the putative DPP class but directed them to apply for renewal of interim co-lead

19

counsel status within one year. (Dkt. No. 80.)

20

Hausfeld and Roberts now apply to renew their status as interim co-lead counsel for DPPs.

21

(Dkt. No. 188.) Having considered Hausfeld’s and Roberts’s unopposed application, the Court

22

considers oral argument unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the June 11,

23

2026 hearing, and GRANTS their unopposed application for renewal of interim co-lead counsel

24

25

26

1 CVS Pharmacy, Inc. did not join the Retailer Plaintiffs’ amended complaint but asserts similar

causes of action in its complaint. (Case No. 25-cv-7646-JSC, Dkt. No. 1.)

27

2 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) in Case No. 25-cv-2785-

1 status for the putative DPP class.

2 DISCUSSION

3 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), “[t]he court may designate interim

4 counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a

5 class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). “Instances in which interim class counsel is appointed are

6 those in which overlapping, duplicative, or competing class suits are pending before a court, so

7 that appointment of interim counsel is necessary to protect the interests of class members.” White

8 v. TransUnion, LLC, 239 F.R.D. 681, 683 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Manual for Complex Litigation

9 (Fourth) § 21.11 (2004)). In evaluating motions seeking appointment, “courts typically look to the

10 factors used in determining the adequacy of class counsel under Rule 23(g)(1)(A).” In re Seagate

11 Tech. LLC Litig., No. 16- CV-00523-RMW, 2016 WL 3401989, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2016).

12 Under that Rule, the Court must consider:

13 (i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential

claims in the action;

14 (ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex

litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;

15 (iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and

(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class[.]

16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). The Court “may [also] consider any other matter pertinent to

17

counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

18

23(g)(1)(B).

19

Hausfeld’s and Roberts’s prior application included evidence of their experience, which

20

they submit has not changed. (Case No. 25-cv-2966-JSC, Dkt. No. 33.) Since their prior

21

application, Hausfeld and Roberts have joined case management conferences and an informal

22

discovery meeting, (Dkt. Nos. 93, 116, 135, 182); submitted case management and discovery

23

filings, (Dkt. Nos. 170, 171, 172); and filed an amended complaint, (Dkt. No. 104). They have

24

also worked with counsel for Retailer Plaintiffs to oppose Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Dkt.

25

No. 144), and to “shepherd[] the case through the early stages of fact discovery.” (Dkt. No. 188 at

26

3.) Furthermore, appointment of interim class counsel continues to “serve the class’s interests by

27

preventing delay” and allowing “counsel [to] create processes for collaboration and

] communication without concern those processes will be disrupted by a subsequent appointment of

2 || different interim class counsel for” the putative DPP class. (/d. at 4-5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23

3 advisory committee’s note to 2003 amendment).)

4 So, the Court grants the application to renew Hausfeld’s and Roberts’s status as co-lead

5 counsel for DPPs.

6 CONCLUSION

7 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the unopposed application to renew the

8 appointment of Hausfeld and Roberts as interim co-lead counsel for DPPs. The Court also adopts

9 || the proposed order at Docket No. 188-1 regarding their duties and authorities. The Court will

10 || consider whether to appoint Hausfeld and Roberts as class counsel when hearing DPPs’ motion

11 for class certification on November 18, 2027. The Court may also review the selection of interim

12 || co-lead counsel at any time on a showing of good cause.

13 The further case management conference scheduled for July 29, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. via

14 || Zoom video remains on calendar. An updated joint case management statement is due one week

3 15 || m advance.

a 16 This Order disposes of Docket No. 188.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 || Dated: May 20, 2026

19

JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL

21 United States District Judge

22

23

24

25

26

27

28