In re Dexilant (Dexlansoprazole) Antitrust Litigation

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