Gorey v. Scripps Health
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion to consolidate two related class actions against Scripps Health and to appoint interim class counsel. The court granted the motion to consolidate and granted leave to amend, but denied the request to appoint interim counsel without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to consolidate cases Gorey (23-cv-0519) and Doe (23-cv-2215) is granted.“The parties request that this Court consolidate these two related class cases, both against Scripps Health and arising from the same general claims. That request is GRANTED.” | agree with court The cases involve the same defendant and general claims, making consolidation appropriate to avoid duplicative litigation and manage the class action efficiently. |
Plaintiff in Doe (23-cv-2215) is granted leave to file an amended complaint incorporating parties, attorneys, and claims from Gorey.“The Court grants LEAVE TO AMEND in Doe, 23cv2215, to file an amended complaint which may only be updated to include the parties, attorneys, and claims from Gorey.” | agree with court This is a procedural mechanism to effectuate the consolidation by merging the claims into a single active case. |
Case Gorey (23-cv-0519) is closed as duplicative.“The Clerk will CLOSE Gorey, 23cv0519, as duplicative.” | agree with court Standard procedure following consolidation where one case is merged into another. |
Motion to appoint interim class counsel is denied without prejudice.“The request to appoint interim counsel, however, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court found no rivalry or uncertainty among the law firms, as they are seeking to serve as co-counsel. The advisory committee note to Rule 23 supports appointment only when there is rivalry or uncertainty, which is absent here. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for appointing interim counsel under Rule 23, citing the advisory committee note and persuasive authority to conclude that the absence of rivalry or uncertainty negates the need for such an appointment. The consolidation and leave to amend are standard procedural responses to the motion.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Catherine GOREY, Case No.: 23-cv-0519-AGS-DEB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 5 v. CONSOLIDATE AND APPOINT 6 SCRIPPS HEALTH, INTERIM COUNSEL AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND 7 Defendant. 8 9 John DOE 1, et al., Case No.: 23-cv-2215-AGS-DEB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 11 v. CONSOLIDATE AND APPOINT 12 SCRIPPS HEALTH, INTERIM COUNSEL AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND 13 Defendant.
14 15 The parties request that this Court consolidate these two related class cases, both 16 against Scripps Health and arising from the same general claims. That request is 17 GRANTED. The Court grants LEAVE TO AMEND in Doe, 23cv2215, to file an 18 amended complaint which may only be updated to include the parties, attorneys, and claims 19 from Gorey. That amended complaint must be filed by March 22, 2024. The Clerk will 20 CLOSE Gorey, 23cv0519, as duplicative.1 21 The request to appoint interim counsel, however, is DENIED WITHOUT 22 PREJUDICE. “In some cases . . . there may be rivalry or uncertainty that makes formal 23 designation of interim counsel appropriate” in putative class cases so that the class is 24 represented by a single attorney or set of attorneys. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 2003 advisory 25 committee’s note. But here, the parties have only identified these two, now consolidated 26 27 28 1 cases, as potentially rivaling one another. “Nor is there a gaggle of law firms jockeying to 2 || be appointed class counsel,” since the only “law firms on the case seek appointment as co- 3 || interim class counsel.” Jn re Nest Labs Litig., No. 14-CV-01363-BLF, 2014 WL 12878556, 4 *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2014) (cleaned up). “There does not appear to be any rivalry” 5 || between those firms “nor any uncertainty as to their respective roles” as co-counsel. /d. 6 || Thus, there is no need to “appoint interim class counsel merely to maintain the status quo.” 7 || See id. If additional suits come along, or additional firms come out of the woodwork 8 || attempting to represent the class, the parties may request the Court revisit the issue. 9 || Dated: February 23, 2024 11 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28