1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AUTRY WILLIS, Case Nos. 3:24-cv-00511-JSC Plaintiff, 3:24-cv-00683-JSC 8 v. 9 ORDER RE: MOTION TO 10 INMARKET MEDIA, LLC, C AO PPN OS IO NL TI D INA TT EE R A IMND C M LAO ST SI O CN O UT NO S EL Defendant. 11 Re: Dkt. No. 11

12

13 14 KENNETH KRUGER,

15 Plaintiff, 16 v.

17 INMARKET MEDIA, LLC, 18 Defendant.

19 20 In these related actions, Plaintiffs bring data privacy claims against InMarket Media on 21 behalf of putative nationwide classes and California subclasses. Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate 22 and for appointment of interim class counsel is now pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 11.1) 23 After carefully considering the motion and the relevant legal authority, the Court concludes oral 24 argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the June 20, 2024 hearing, and 25 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. 26 // 27 1 DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiffs Autry Willis and Kenneth Kruger filed these putative class actions within a week 3 of each other. Plaintiffs allege InMarket Media collected, stored, shared, and/or used their 4 historical and real-time geolocation data without their informed consent including through an 5 InMarket Software Development Kit that was embedded in third-party applications. Plaintiffs 6 bring identical claims under California law and the Kruger action also pleads a claim under the 7 Federal Wiretap Act,

. 8 On the heels of the complaints, Plaintiffs filed the now pending motion to consolidate the 9 actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and motion for appointment of interim class 10 counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Upon receipt, the Court related the two 11 actions under Civil Local Rule 3-12 and continued the hearing on the motion until June 13, 2024 12 to allow Defendant time to appear and respond to the complaint, and because Plaintiffs had 13 indicated other duplicative actions were likely to be filed.2 (Dkt. Nos. 16, 17.) The parties 14 thereafter filed a stipulation that any response to the complaints would be due after the Court ruled 15 on the pending motion. (Dkt. No. 18.) 16 A. Consolidation 17 Plaintiffs contend consolidation is appropriate because the two actions assert common 18 claims against the same defendant based on the same alleged misconduct and seek certification of 19 similar classes based on allegations of similar harm. Under Rule 42(a), consolidation may be 20 appropriate “[i]f actions before the court involve common questions of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ.

(a). Districts courts have “broad discretion” under Rule 42(a) to consolidate cases pending in 22 the same district. Inv’r Res. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal.,

, 23 777 (9th Cir. 1989). Given the overlapping claims, classes, and defendant, as well as InMarket 24 Media’s non-opposition, the Court concludes consolidate is appropriate and grants the motion to 25 consolidate. 26 // 27 1 B. Appointment of Interim Class Counsel 2 The Court, however, is not persuaded appointment of interim class counsel is appropriate 3 at this time. In their motion, Plaintiffs indicate appointment is necessary because “other 4 duplicative actions will likely be filed in this Court and elsewhere,” but it does not appear any 5 such actions have been filed, at least in this District. (Dkt. No. 11 at 8.) 6 Under Rule 23(g)(3), a district court “may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a 7 putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 23(g)(3). The “appointment of interim class counsel is discretionary.” Bielski v. Coinbase, Inc., 9 No. C 21-07478 WHA,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2022). “[C]ourts have 10 recognized that the typical situation requiring appointment of interim class counsel is one where a 11 large number of putative class actions have been consolidated or otherwise are pending in a single 12 court.” Imran v. Vital Pharms., Inc., No. 18-CV-05758-JST,

, at *10 (N.D. Cal. 13 Apr. 5, 2019) (cleaned up). Because these circumstances have not manifested here and numerous 14 other actions with overlapping claims have not in fact been filed, the Court sees no reason to 15 deviate from the normal procedure for class actions. See In re Roundup Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 16- 16 md-02741-VC,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020) (“The appointment of class 17 counsel is typically considered once a class has been certified absent a special justification.”). 18 Plaintiffs’ counsel in these actions appear to be working well together and indeed, as lead 19 counsel in each seek appointment as co-lead interim counsel, there will be no difference in the 20 workload among the two whether interim appointment is granted or not. According to the 21 advisory committee notes that accompanied the 2003 amendments to Rule 23, the benchmark for 22 appointment of interim class counsel is whether the designation of interim counsel is “necessary to 23 protect the interests of the putative class.” Plaintiffs have not shown under the present 24 circumstances that appointment of interim counsel is necessary to protect the interests of the class. 25 Accordingly, the motion for appointment of interim class counsel is denied without 26 prejudice. 27 CONCLUSION 1 appointment of interim class counsel is DENIED without prejudice. These related actions are 2 consolidated under the docket number of the first-filed Willis case, No. 3:24-cv-00511-JSC, under 3 the title In re InMarket Media Location Data Tracking Litigation. 4 Within 21 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file and serve a consolidated 5 complaint. Defendant’s response is due 30 days after filing of the consolidated complaint. 6 The Court sets an initial case management conference for August 29, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. via 7 videoconference. A joint case management conference statement is due August 22, 2024. 8 This Order disposes of Docket No. 11. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: June 11, 2024 | 11 «2 ne ‘ACQWELINE SCOTT CORLEY 13 United States District Judge

15 16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28