1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRADLEY CARICOFE, SHAWN Case No.: 23-CV-1012 TWR (AHG) THIBODEAUX, JULIE THIBODEAUX, 12 KENNETH HUNNEL, and LEANNE ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 HUNNEL, individually, and on behalf of PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ a class of similarly situated individuals, UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 14 APPOINT LEAD PLAINTIFFS AND Plaintiffs, 15 LEAD COUNSEL v. 16 (ECF No. 4) FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware 17 corporation, 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 Presently before the Court is the Unopposed Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs and 22 Lead Counsel filed by Plaintiffs Bradley Caricofe, Shawn Thibodeaux, Julie Thibodeaux, 23 Kenneth Hunnel, and Leanne Hunnel in this putative class action. (ECF No. 4, “Mot.”) 24 Defendant Ford Motor Company does not oppose the Motion. (See Mot. at 3.) Pursuant 25 to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court deems this matter suitable for determination 26 without oral argument. Having considered Plaintiffs’ arguments and the relevant law, the 27 Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Motion. 28 / / / 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs bring this putative class action “individually and on behalf of all persons 3 in the United States who purchased or leased any 2020-present Ford Explorer 2.3L or 3.0L 4 ST vehicle equipped with a rear subframe assembly attached to the vehicle via only one 5 rear axle horizontal mounting bolt.” (ECF No. 1, “SAC,” ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs filed their 6 Complaint on May 31, 2023. (See generally SAC.) A similar suit brought on behalf of the 7 same type of class for the same defect in any 2020-present Ford Explorer 2.3L or 3.0L ST 8 vehicle was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan on June 19, 2023. See Coolidge v. 9 Ford Motor Co., No. 2:23-cv-11445-GCS-DRG (E.D. Mich. June 19, 2023). 10 DISCUSSION 11 “The court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before 12 determining whether to certify the action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). “As 13 the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognized, substantial 14 resources are often invested by counsel for the putative class at the pre-certification stage.” 15 Friedman v. Guthy-Renker LLC, No. 2:14-cv-06009-ODW (AGRx),

, 16 at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2016) (citing Advisory Committee’s notes to Federal Rule of 17 Civil Procedure 23(g)). “This includes conducting extensive discovery, making or 18 responding to motions, and engaging in settlement negotiations.”

“Thus, where there 19 is ‘rivalry or uncertainty’ regarding which attorney or law firm is authorized to act on 20 behalf of the putative class . . . appointment of interim class counsel is often appropriate.” 21

“If the lawyer who filed the suit is likely to be the only lawyer seeking appointment as 22 class counsel, appointing interim class counsel may be unnecessary.” In re Google 23 Assistant Priv. Litig., No. 19-cv-04286-BLF,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 24 2020) (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.11 (2004)). “If, however, 25 there are a number of overlapping, duplicative, or competing suits pending in other courts, 26 and some or all of those suits may be consolidated, a number of lawyers may compete for 27 class counsel appointment.” Id. (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.11 28 (2004)). “In such cases, designation of interim [class] counsel clarifies responsibility for 1 protecting the interests of the class during precertification activities [such as conducting 2 discovery, making and responding to motions, moving for class certification, and 3 negotiating settlement].” Id. (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.11 4 (2004)); see Boone v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, No. 1:21-cv-00241-ADA-BAM,

3720996, at 1 (E.D. Cal. May 30, 2023). 6 In determining whether to appoint class counsel, the Court considers the following 7 factors outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1)(A): (i) “the work counsel has 8 done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action;” (ii) “counsel’s 9 experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims 10 asserted in the action;” (iii) “counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law;” and (iv) “the 11 resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.” The Court may also consider 12 “any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the 13 interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4) (class 14 counsel must “fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class”). “When one 15 applicant seeks appointment as class counsel, the [C]ourt may appoint that applicant only 16 if the applicant is adequate under Rule 23(g)(1) and (4).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2). “If 17 more than one adequate applicant seeks appointment, the [C]ourt must appoint the 18 applicant best able to represent the interests of the class.”

19 Here, Plaintiffs request that their counsel at Capstone Law APC be appointed as 20 interim counsel. (Mot. at 1–3.) Plaintiffs support their request under Rule 23(g) with a 21 single sentence: “Plaintiffs’ counsel spent no less than six (6) months thoroughly 22 investigating and brought the original factual legal claims asserted in this case, [are] 23 knowledgeable of the history, facts and allegations made in the present matter due to their 24 extensive investigation, have extensive expertise in litigation of complex cases, including 25 automotive defect and false advertising actions, substantial knowledge of applicable law, 26 and are able and willing to commit the resources necessary to coordinate and prosecute this 27 action to the fullest.” (Mot. at 2.) While the Court credits Plaintiffs’ counsel’s work in 28 investigating the claims in this case and counsel’s representation that they are willing and 1 to commit all necessary resources to this case, Plaintiffs’ counsel has provided no 2 ||factual support to show they have extensive experience in litigation of class actions or 3 ||complex cases. (See Mot.) Nor has counsel provided any support for their claim that they 4 || possess substantial knowledge of the applicable law. (U/d.) Without such information, the 5 ||Court cannot properly weigh the Rule 23(g) factors and determine whether Plaintiffs’ 6 || counsel is adequate under Rule 23(g)(1) and (4). 7 Plaintiffs have also provided no legal authority for the Court to appoint them as lead 8 || Plaintiffs for the putative class prior to class certification nor have they explained how they 9 || would adequately represent the interests of the putative class. (See Mot.) Plaintiffs have 10 not explained why appointment as lead Plaintiffs would be necessary if the Court 11 ultimately appoints their counsel as interim lead counsel. 12 As such, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel is DENIED 13 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to properly support the Motion. 14 CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ 16 || Unopposed Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel. Plaintiffs may file a 17 |}renewed Motion with proper support no later than fourteen (4) days after the date this 18 || Order is electronically docketed. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: July 31, 2023 —_—— 21 | od) (2 re 27 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 33 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28