Moore v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

N.D. California

Moore v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

DecidedFebruary 7, 2024

Docket5:23-cv-05011

StatusUnknown

This text of Moore v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Moore v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Moore v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-american-honda-motor-co-inc-cand-2024.