Roger Yanez v. Knight Transportation Incorporated

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Patrick LaCross, et al., No. CV-15-00990-PHX-JJT

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Knight Transportation Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue is Plaintiffs and Class Representatives Robert Lira and Matthew Lofton’s 16 Notice of Election of Counsel and Related Matters (Doc. 350). 17 As the Court stated in its prior Order (Doc. 348), Marlin & Saltzman, LLP is class 18 counsel in this matter. Upon the election of Plaintiffs Lira and Lofton to be represented by 19 non-class counsel, Blackstone Law, APC (Doc. 350), the Court will terminate Lira and 20 Lofton as class representatives in this matter. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) 21 requires that the representative plaintiff and his counsel “will fairly and adequately protect 22 the interests of the class,” which includes the requirement that the class representative and 23 his counsel have no conflicts of interest with other class members or their counsel. See 24 Anchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625-26 (1997); Evon v. Law Offices of 25 Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1031 (9th Cir. 2012). As such, the non-representative 26 Plaintiffs, whether represented by non-class counsel Blackstone Law or any other counsel, 27 may not file their own motion to amend the complaint or for summary judgment in this 28 matter, as Blackstone Law improperly states it intends to do in its Notice. Only the 1 || remaining class representative, Patrick LaCross, represented by class counsel Marlin & || Saltzman, LLP, may file those motions on behalf of the class of Plaintiffs in this matter. || See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348-49 (2011) (“Rule 23(a) ensures that 4|| the named plaintiffs are appropriate representatives of the class whose claims they wish to 5 || litigate.”) 6 As for Blackstone Law’s apparent concern that Marlin & Saltzman will not comply || with the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct in transferring the files related to the non- 8 || representative Plaintiffs Blackstone Law states it represents—Lira, Lofton, Patino Garcia, 9|| Carter, and Rosete—nothing in the Court’s Order (Doc. 348) was intended to authorize 10 || such non-compliance. The Court stated that Marlin & Saltzman shall transfer the case files “only pertaining to the Plaintiffs [Blackstone Law] will represent” to indicate that, for || example, files pertaining to the depositions of Plaintiffs Blackstone Law does not represent 13} need not be transferred to Blackstone Law. 14 Finally, the Court set the date of transfer of the files to Blackstone Law independent || of the deadline for filing a motion for summary judgment, because, as stated supra, 16 || Blackstone Law as non-class counsel may not file a motion for summary judgment on || behalf of non-representative (or representative) Plaintiffs. 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate Robert || Lira and Matthew Lofton as representative Plaintiffs, and to terminate counsel Karen I. 20 || Gold as counsel for the remaining representative Plaintiff, Patrick LaCross, in this class action. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the request to amend the complaint filed 23 || by non-representative Plaintiffs Lira, Lofton, Patino Garcia, Carter, and Rosete (Doc. 350) 24 || and denying the other relief requested in these Plaintiffs’ Notice (Doc. 350). 25 Dated this 12th day of February, 2024. CN 26 “wok: 97 wefhlee— Unifga State#District Judge 28

_2-