Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01156/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01156-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332pr Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAULA DITTMAR, et al.

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 14cv1156-LAB (JLB)

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

vs. BRIEFING

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP.,

Defendant.

Class counsel asks to amend the complaint to substitute new class representatives

and to withdraw from representing Paula Dittmar and Pauline Tilton. Counsel says after the

parties reached a settlement, Dittmar and Tilton reneged, refused to settle, and have ceased

communicating with Counsel. See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d).

Courts must “be particularly circumspect in permitting counsel to withdraw from

representing just a few plaintiffs in the context of a class action.” Woodall v. Drake Hotel,

Inc., 913 F.2d 447, 450 (7th Cir. 1990). But the Court has “discretion to address attorney

representation and disqualification issues based on the details of each case” and “the unique

ethical and due process concerns involved in class actions.” Radcliffe v. Hernandez, 818

F.3d 537, 549 (9th Cir. 2016). Radcliffe didn’t deal with the same facts as this case, but the

Ninth Circuit cited with approval the following balancing test from the Third Circuit: 

[I]n the class action context, once some class representatives object to a settlement

negotiated on their behalf, class counsel may continue to represent the remaining

class representatives and the class, as long as the interest of the class in continued

representation by experienced counsel is not outweighed by the actual prejudice to

the objectors of being opposed by their former counsel.

- 1 - 14cv1156

Case 3:14-cv-01156-JLB Document 133 Filed 06/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Lazy Oil Co. v. Witco Corp., 166 F.3d 581, 590 (3d Cir. 1999). The Court has found one

similar case in our circuit where the district court approved a withdrawal motion as “the only

way to resolve the obvious conflict of interest created by the overwhelming approval by the

rest of the class.” Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility, 87 F.R.D. 15, 19 (N.D. Cal. 1980), aff'd,

661 F.2d 939 (9th Cir. 1981).

While the Court is inclined to grant the request to amend and withdraw, counsel didn’t

discuss any of the cases above or adequately explain why withdrawal is necessary. Instead,

counsel says that Dittmar and Tilton “engaged counsel to file a lawsuit on behalf of a class”

and therefore “any individual claims [are] not within the purview of the representation.”

1

Counsel appears to be saying that they’ve always been counsel for the class—not for

Dittmar and Tilton individually. If so, the court doesn’t understand why counsel needs to

withdraw.

The Court requires class counsel to file a concise memorandum explaining why

withdrawal is necessary and discussing any relevant authority. Counsel should also discuss

California’s conflict laws and whether class counsel must obtain consent from Dittmar and

Tilton before entering a relationship with new class representatives with adverse interests.

Counsel shall file the memorandum on or before June 9, 2017, and ensure this order and

the memorandum are provided to Dittmar and Tilton.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 2, 2017

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

 Dkt. 124-1 at 14. 1

- 2 - 14cv1156

Case 3:14-cv-01156-JLB Document 133 Filed 06/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2