Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04384/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04384-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABERIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR 

COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-04384-JST 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF AN INTERIM COLEAD CLASS COUNSEL AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Re: ECF No. 85

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel 

and an Executive Committee. ECF No. 85. Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. opposes 

the motion. ECF No. 96. The Court will grant Plaintiffs’ request for appointment of interim colead class counsel and deny Plaintiffs’ request for appointment of an executive committee. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In this purported class action, twelve named Plaintiffs allege that they purchased new or 

used Acura vehicles manufactured by Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“AHM” 

or “Honda” or “Acura”). ECF No. 98. Their Acura vehicles were equipped with a defective 

Bluetooth system, the Hands Free Link (“HFL”) system, which caused a “parasitic drain” on their 

electrical systems, resulting in “premature failure of [] essential electric components” and posing 

substantial safety hazards. Id. ¶ 3. The system was advertised as a convenient and safe way for a 

driver to connect her phone to the vehicle and enjoy hands-free phone calls. Id. ¶ 194. Plaintiffs 

allege that if they had known of the problem, they would not have purchased their vehicles or 

would have paid less for them. Id. ¶ 31. 

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Defendant on August 3, 2016. ECF No. 1. 

On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff Charles Burgess filed a class action complaint alleging substantially 

Case 3:16-cv-04384-JST Document 108 Filed 08/24/17 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

similar claims. ECF No. 85 at 9; see Burgess v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 17-cv1060. The Court has consolidated these actions into the present suit. See ECF No. 92. Following 

consolidation, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 98. On June 22, 

2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for appointment of a two-firm co-lead class counsel and a threefirm executive committee. ECF No. 85. Defendant opposes this motion. ECF No. 96. 

III. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint Christopher A. Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP and 

James E. Cecchi of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. (“Carella Byrne”) as 

interim co-lead class counsel. ECF No. 85 at 12-13. 

A district court “may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before 

determining whether to certify the action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). 

“[D]esignation of interim counsel clarifies responsibility for protecting the interests of the class 

during precertification activities, such as making and responding to motions, conducting any 

necessary discovery, moving for class certification, and negotiating settlement.” Manual for 

Complex Litig., § 21.11 (4th ed. 2004). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1)(A) requires that

courts consider the following factors in appointing class counsel: “(i) the work counsel has done in 

identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel’s experience in handling 

class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel’s 

knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing 

the class.” The Court looks to those factors in designating interim class counsel as well. See

Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor Am., 2006 WL 2289801, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2006) (“Rule 23(g) 

provides criteria to consider when appointing class counsel, without distinguishing interim 

counsel. Presumably, the same factors apply[.]”); In re Air Cargo Shipping Serv. Antitrust Litig., 

240 F.R.D. 56, 57 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (“[I]t appears to be generally accepted that the considerations 

set out in Rule 23(g)(1)(C), which governs appointment of class counsel once a class is certified, 

apply equally to the designation of interim class counsel before certification.”). 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ proposal and concludes that co-lead class counsel 

comprised of Seeger Weiss and Carella Byrne would “fairly and adequately represent the interests 

Case 3:16-cv-04384-JST Document 108 Filed 08/24/17 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B). Each firm has done extensive work identifying, 

investigating, and prosecuting the potential claims. ECF No. 85 at 16. Each firm has experience 

handling complex litigation1and knowledge of the applicable law.2 Id. And each firm has 

established that it will commit adequate resources to representing the class. ECF No. 85 at 21-22. 

Accordingly, the Court designates Seeger Weiss and Carella Byrne as interim co-lead class 

counsel. 

IV. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint a three-firm executive committee consisting of: 

(1) Steven W. Berman of Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro; (2) Roland K. Tellis of Baron & Budd;

and (3) James C. Shah of Shepherd Finkleman. ECF No. 85 at 17. Plaintiffs assert that this 

leadership structure “will harmonize the efforts and interests of all clients and counsel involved, 

promote efficiency and cooperation among all parties and obversely eliminate the risk of fractious 

or redundant litigation efforts.” Id. at 8. Defendant responds that an executive committee is not 

warranted in this case. ECF No. 96 at 3. The Court agrees.

“Committees are most commonly needed when group members’ interests and positions are 

sufficiently dissimilar to justify giving them representation in decision making.” Manuel for 

Complex Litig., § 10.221. “Committees of counsel can sometimes lead to substantially increased 

costs, and they should try to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and control fees and 

expenses.” Id. Courts within this circuit routinely deny requests for appointment of executive 

committees where a plaintiff fails to demonstrate that such an appointment is necessary. See, e.g., 

Kamakahi v. Am. Soc. for Reprod. Med., 2012 WL 892163, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2012) (“The 

Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the appointment of a three-firm 

Executive Committee to prosecute this action is warranted.”); Michelle v. Arctic Zero, Inc., 2013 

 

1 Both firms present resumes that demonstrate that they have been previously appointed as lead or 

co-lead counsel in class actions on numerous occasions and have extensive experience prosecuting 

complex litigation across the United States. See ECF 85-3, 85-4. 

2 Both firms claim to have substantial experience prosecuting the types of consumer claims at 

issue in this case, including claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil 

Code §§ 1750-1784. and the Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-17210. ECF 

No. 85 at 16. 

Case 3:16-cv-04384-JST Document 108 Filed 08/24/17 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

WL 791145, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2013) (same); In re 5-Hour Energy Mktg. v. Innovation 

Ventures, LLC, 2013 WL 12134144, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013) (“[I]t is not clear to the Court 

how the appointment of an Executive Committee at this point would benefit the proposed class 

members.”); Nicolow v. Hewlett Packard Co., 2013 WL 792642, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013) 

(declining to appoint an executive committee); In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., 

2008 WL 2024957, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2008) (concluding that there was “no need for an 

executive committee at this time”). 

The Court concludes that the appointment of an executive committee is not warranted in 

this case for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs have neither addressed nor demonstrated that the 

interests of the class diverge or are dissimilar. See Manuel for Complex Litig., § 10.221. The

consolidated action is comprised of two suits with “substantively identical” claims. ECF No. 85 at 

7. The fact that there is “more than one Plaintiff group,” ECF No. 101 at 2, is irrelevant if 

Plaintiffs’ interests are not divergent or dissimilar. Thus, an executive committee is not necessary 

to protect class members’ interests in decision-making. See Kamakahi, 2012 WL 892163, at *3

(declining to appoint a three-firm executive committee where plaintiff did not “identif[y] any 

diverse interest among the parties”); Michelle, 2013 WL 791145, at *4 (concluding that a threefirm executive committee was not warranted because plaintiff did not address whether the interests 

of the class diverged or were dissimilar). 

Second, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the interests of efficiency and economy 

are best served by appointing a three-firm executive counsel. See Manuel for Complex Litig., § 

10.221 (“The types of appointments and assignments of responsibilities will depend on many 

factors. The most important is achieving efficiency and economy without jeopardizing fairness to 

the parties.”); see also Boggs v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 286 F.R.D. 621, 624 (W.D. Okla. 

2012) (concluding that an executive committee would “not promote effective management of [this 

action] but is ripe for wasteful, duplicative work product, excessive billing, and internal 

conflicts”). Plaintiffs do not articulate how an executive committee would increase efficiency and 

the Court does not believe that a five-firm organizational structure would achieve that effect. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for a three-firm executive committee is denied. 

Case 3:16-cv-04384-JST Document 108 Filed 08/24/17 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint Seeger Weiss and Carella Byrne as interim 

co-lead class counsel. The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint a three-firm executive

committee. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2017

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-04384-JST Document 108 Filed 08/24/17 Page 5 of 5