UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CO-LEAD

INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL

IN RE: UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI COVID-19

TUITION AND FEE REFUND LITIGATION Case No.: 20-60851-CIV-SINGHAL

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 1 of 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1

APPLICABLE LAW...........................................................................................2

ARGUMENT....................................................................................................4

I. Standard for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel..................................4

II. Proposed Interim Class Counsel Has Thoroughly Identified

 and Investigated the Claims..............................................................6

III. Proposed Interim Class Counsel is Experienced in Handling

 Class Actions and Other Complex Litigation.........................................12

IV. Proposed Interim Class Counsel Has the Ability and Desire to

 Commit the Necessary Resources to Represent the Classes.........................12

CONCLUSION...............................................................................................14

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 2 of 19
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

RULES

Fed. R.Civ. P. 23(g).............................................................................................1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3)........................................................................................1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2)(A)...................................................................................2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1).......................................................................................3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(ii)...............................................................................6

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Advisory Committee Note to Rule 23(g)...................................................................2

Manual for Complex Litigation (4th ed.).................................................................2,3

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 3 of 19
1

INTRODUCTION

On August 5, 2020, the Court entered an Order consolidating four related actions pending 

before this Court (Case Nos. 20-60851-CIV; 20-22207-CIV; 20-22316-CIV; and 20-22594-CIV) 

and directing Plaintiffs to file a Motion to Appoint Lead Counsel no later than August 7, 2020.

Plaintiffs Valeria Dimitryuk (“Dimitryuk”), Michael Weiss (“Weiss”), and Adelaide Dixon 

(“Dixon”) (collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs”), having met and conferred with each 

other, jointly submit that they have been able to reach an agreement as to a leadership structure 

that would best serve the putative class(es) and move this Court for entry of an Order regarding 

the same. As a result, they move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), for an order 

appointing Bursor & Fisher, P.A. (“Bursor & Fisher”), Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP 

(“Hagens Berman”), and Anastopoulo Law Firm, LLC (“Anastopoulo”), (collectively, “Proposed 

Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel”) as co-lead interim class counsel. Bursor & Fisher, Hagens 

Berman, and Anastopoulo have significant nationwide consumer class action and complex 

litigation experience, knowledge of the applicable law, and substantial resources to litigate these

actions.

1

 They also have a proven track record of success in consumer class actions, mass 

actions, and complex litigation that will be of great benefit to the proposed class(es). 

Appointment of interim class counsel will promote efficiency, conserve judicial resources and 

create a unified voice for putative class members that will streamline this litigation with a team 

capable of taking the case to trial if necessary.

1 Hagens Berman’s request for appointment as Interim Class Counsel is further supported by 

their co-counsel in Weiss, Grossman Roth Yaffa Cohen, P.A., a Miami-based law firm that also 

has extensive experience prosecuting class actions in its own right. Grossman Roth’s availability 

and experience will further benefit plaintiffs and the class and ensure that Hagens Berman 

continues to satisfy LR 4’s appearance requirements.

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 4 of 19
2

Specific to tuition refund litigation, Courts have already recognized the firms’ experience 

and qualifications to serve as interim lead counsel. Anastopoulo has already been appointed colead counsel in In re Columbia University Tuition Refund Action in the Southern District of New 

York (1:20-cv-03208-JMF) and Montesano v. The Catholic University of America in the District 

of Columbia (1:20-cv-01496-DLF). Both Bursor & Fisher and Anastopoulo were appointed as 

co-lead counsel in Qureshi v. American University in the District of Columbia (1:20-cv-01141-

CRC). Likewise, Hagens Berman was appointed one of three interim co-lead counsel in the In re 

USC Tuition & Fees COVID-19 Refund Litigation in the Central District of California (2:20-cv04066-DMG) and is leading the charge in numerous other cases. Additionally, the firms await 

other resolutions of other leadership appointment requests and are otherwise leading nationally in 

this emerging field. 

APPLICABLE LAW

The appointment of interim class counsel is recommended early, before class certification 

to protect the interests of the putative class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); Annotated Manual for 

Complex Litigation (4th ed. 2006) (the “Manual”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2)(A) 

(providing for designating interim class counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before 

determining class certification). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), a “court may 

designate interim counsel to act on behalf of the putative class before determining whether to 

certify the action as a class action.” Although the rule states the court “may” appoint an interim 

counsel, courts that have construed Rule 23(g)(3) have relied on the Advisory Committee Notes 

(the “Notes”) accompanying the rule to hold that appointment of interim class counsel is useful 

because it “clarifies responsibility for protecting the interests of the class during precertification 

activities.” In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litig., 252 F.R.D. 184, 185 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 5 of 19
3

(internal citations omitted); Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc., 2019 WL 6324276, at *2 

(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2019) (“Establishing interim lead counsel in this action will minimize the 

risk of duplicative filings and allow the Court to consolidate related filings more efficiently.”). 

Further, the Notes contemplate “that in many cases the need to progress toward the certification 

determination may require designation of interim counsel.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Advisory

Committee Notes (2003) (emphasis added). 

In the Manual, the court should “conduct an independent review to ensure that counsel 

appointed to leading roles are qualified and responsible, that they will fairly and adequately 

represent all of the parties on their side, and that their charges will be reasonable.” Manual at § 

10.22. The most important factor is “achieving efficiency and economy without jeopardizing 

fairness to parties.” Id. at § 10.221. While neither Rule 23 nor the Notes expressly so state, it is 

generally accepted that the considerations set out in Rule 23(g)(1), which govern the 

appointment of class counsel once a class is certified, apply equally to designating interim class 

counsel before certification. See Anderson v. Fiserv, Inc., 2010 WL 571812, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 

Jan. 29, 2010); Bernstein, 2019 WL 6324276, at *1 (“When appointing interim class counsel, 

courts generally look to the same factors used in determining the adequacy of class counsel 

under Rule 23(g)(1)(A).”).

Rule 23(g)(1)(A) provides, in relevant part, that in appointing class counsel the Court 

must consider:

(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

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 6 of 19
4

(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing 

the class.

Fed R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1).

In general, a class is fairly and adequately represented where counsel is qualified, 

experienced and generally capable of conducting class action litigation. See Blessing v. Sirius 

XM Radio Inc., 2011 WL 1194707, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2011). Each of these

considerations, support the appointment of Bursor & Fisher, Hagens Berman, and Anastopoulo

as co-lead interim class counsel.

ARGUMENT

I. PROPOSED CO-LEAD INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL HAS THOROUGHLY 

IDENTIFIED AND INVESTIGATED THE CLAIMS

While no one factor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1) “should necessarily 

be determinative,” Advisory Committee Notes (2003), the investigative and analytical efforts of 

counsel can be a deciding factor:

In a case with a plaintiff class, the process of drafting the 

complaint requires some investigatory and analytical effort, tasks that 

strangers to the action most likely will not have undertaken. All other 

things being equal, when an attorney has performed these or other 

investigative and analytical tasks before making the application for

appointment, he or she is in a better position to represent the class fairly 

and adequately than attorneys who did not undertake those tasks.

Moore’s Fed. Prac. § 23.120(3)(a) (3d. Ed. 2007). 

Here, Bursor & Fisher, Hagens Berman, and Anastopoulo’s work in identifying and 

investigating the claims in this case demonstrates that they have and will continue to fairly and 

adequately represent the proposed Class. For example, Proposed Co-Lead Interim Class 

Counsel has performed the following work thus far: 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 7 of 19
5

a) Investigated potential legal claims arising from Defendant’s closure of its campus and 

failure to provide in-person classes during the Spring 2020 term;

b) Reviewed and analyzed numerous articles describing Defendant’s challenged 

conduct;

c) Reviewed and analyzed Defendant’s website;

d) Reviewed and analyzed Defendant’s policies, student handbooks, and course 

catalogs;

e) Conferred with potential consulting experts regarding the technical aspect of 

Defendants’ conduct; and 

f) Reviewed and analyzed Defendant’s billing records, and students’ payment records, 

relating to the Spring 2020 semester;

g) Investigated the nature of the challenged conduct at issue by interviewing numerous

University of Miami students;

h) Reviewed and analyzed comments and statements by University of Miami staff 

related to the challenged conduct at issue;

i) Investigated the adequacy of the named Plaintiffs to represent the putative class;

j) Drafted and filed the Complaints in this action;

k) Served the Complaints in this action;

l) Cooperated with defense counsel on venue transfer and other issues;

m) Met, conferred and cooperated on the filing of a joint response to the Court’s Order 

relating to consolidation; and

n) Met, conferred and cooperated on the filing of this motion.

These investigative and cooperative efforts represent a high standard of professionalism, 

dedication, and thoroughness, which have been marshaled to identify, develop and demonstrate 

the claims alleged in the Complaint. These measures are precisely the type of work that the 

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 23 state that the Court should consider in appointing interim 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 8 of 19
6

class counsel.

The Notes to Rule 23 also contemplate that the appointment of interim class counsel may 

be necessary to conduct pre-certification discovery before a determination to grant or deny class 

certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1), because “some discovery is often necessary for that 

determination.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Advisory Committee Notes (2003). Here, significant 

discovery and related motion practice is expected to take place before class certification. See 

id. (noting that interim class counsel may be necessary to “make or respond to motions before 

certification”). Discovery in this matter may be complicated, and it may require meet-andconfers and motion practice before class certification. Proposed Co-Lead Interim Class 

Counsel’s thorough investigation into the claims will enable them to efficiently and adequately 

handle this discovery and related motion practice.

II. PROPOSED CO-LEAD INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL IS EXPERIENCED IN 

HANDLING CLASS ACTIONS AND OTHER COMPLEX LITIGATION

The second factor the court must consider is “counsel’s experience in handling class 

actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(g)(1)(A)(ii). Here, Proposed Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel has substantial experience 

handling consumer class actions and other complex litigation, including successful experience 

litigating and settling consumer claims for unjust enrichment and breach of contract. The firms’ 

attorneys have significant complex and class action litigation experience having represented 

plaintiffs in over 100 class action lawsuits in state and federal courts throughout the United 

States. See generally Decl. of Sarah N. Westcot (“Westcot Decl.”); Decl. of Steve W. Berman

(“Berman Decl.”); Decl. of Roy T. Willey (“Willey Decl.”).

Bursor & Fisher

Bursor & Fisher has an extensive and successful history throughout the country, 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 9 of 19
7

including certification of contested nationwide classes in cases such as Ebin v. Kangadis Food 

Inc., 297 F.R.D. 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) and Hart v. BHH, LLC, 2017 WL 2912519 (S.D.N.Y. July 

7, 2017), and New York and California classes in In re Scotts EZ Seed Litig., 304 F.R.D. 397 

(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2015). As Judge S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York recognized 

in appointing Bursor & Fisher class counsel in Ebin, “Bursor & Fisher, P.A., are class action 

lawyers who have experience litigating consumer claims. . . . The firm has been appointed class 

counsel in dozens of cases in both federal and state courts, and has won multi-million dollar 

verdicts or recoveries in five class action jury trials since 2008.” Ebin, 297 F.R.D. at 566.

More generally, within the past seven years, Bursor & Fisher lawyers have been courtappointed counsel or interim class counsel in over thirty class actions. Bursor & Fisher also 

negotiated and obtained court approval for two landmark settlements in Nguyen v. Verizon 

Wireless and Zill v. Sprint Spectrum (the largest and second largest classes ever certified, 

respectively, at the time). Westcot Decl. ¶ 2. These settlements required Verizon and Sprint to 

open their wireless networks to third-party devices and applications. Id. Bursor & Fisher has 

also proven that it can—and will—take cases to trial if necessary, having won multi-million 

dollar verdicts or recoveries in six of six civil jury trials in consumer class actions since 2008. 

Id. at ¶ 4. For example, while serving as lead trial counsel in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 

Bursor & Fisher obtained a $299 million trial verdict for a class of Sprint customers on a claim 

for unjust enrichment. Id. And last year, in McMillion v. Rash Curtis & Associates, Bursor & 

Fisher won a class action jury trial for claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and 

secured a $267 million judgment. Id.

Bursor & Fisher is a leader in the emerging field of COVID-19 refund litigation, having 

been appointed to serve as co-lead interim class counsel in a number of COVID-19 related 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 10 of 19
8

refund matters. Judge Altman recently appointed Bursor & Fisher as co-lead interim class 

counsel in Hill, et al. v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-60746 (S.D. Fla.) (representing a 

putative class of consumers seeking refunds for airline tickets purchased for flights cancelled due 

to COVID-19). Bursor & Fisher was also recently appointed as co-lead interim class counsel in

Qureshi v. American University, 1:20-cv-01141-CRC (DCD), another university tuition and fee 

refund matter. Bursor & Fisher’s experience in this field will lead to many efficiencies that will 

ultimately benefit the putative class in this action.

Hagens Berman

Likewise, Hagens Berman has a history of success and experience litigating as lead 

counsel, including in in this district. See generally Ex. A to Berman Decl. (attaching firm 

resume). For example in the Rosner, et al. v. United States, Case No. 01-1859-CIV (S.D. Fla.), 

Hagens Berman served as co-lead counsel, obtaining significant relief for class members, 

including a $25.5 mm settlement fund to provide humanitarian relief to needy survivors of the 

Hungarian Holocaust worldwide and the non-monetary relief included a statement of apology 

issued by the United States government over its handling of Jewish Hungarian property in 

Austria in 1946. Berman Decl., ¶ 5. Hagens Berman and the other Rosner litigators drew praise 

from Judge Patricia A. Seitz, as recorded in the final approval hearing transcript:

And I would like to again, you will hear me throughout this 

hearing, compliment the lawyers. I did so during the adversary 

process because you truly performed at a level, both sides, that 

really make the job of being a Judge a delight to see that quality of 

performance. And in my capacity as a former President of the Bar, 

I am particularly delighted to see the profession represented by 

such outstanding lawyers. I also found that same performance on a 

level when the efforts to resolve the conflict in not only the most 

humane, thoughtful, fair fashion, and the creativity and the 

sensitivity that the lawyers on both sides brought, because I realize 

this was a very hotly contested case, and the professionalism of 

both sides to move to that side for dispute resolution really was a 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 11 of 19
9

testament again to what value lawyers add to our civil society.

***

Our system has a system of justice that is the foundation since our 

forefathers created this country and the Constitution in 1789 that 

provides the court of justice where people can bring their 

disagreements and hopefully resolve those disagreements either by 

settlement or by litigation. Here, because of the outstanding work 

of the lawyers, we have been able to not only resolve the conflict, 

but to begin a healing process and bring closure.

Id. ¶ 6. More recently, Hagens Berman is currently leading a case before Judge Moreno on

behalf of purchasers of allegedly defective Ford Shelby Cobra cars. Tershakovec et al v. Ford 

Motor Co., No. 1:17-cv-21087-FAM (S.D. Fla.). Id. ¶ 7.

Other significant recoveries in other jurisdictions include In re Electronic Books Antitrust 

Litigation, No. 11-md-2293 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.) (where Hagens Berman was appointed co-lead 

counsel in this complex litigation involving six defendants, 33 Attorneys General and the U.S. 

Department of Justice, with settlements totaling more than $550 million, representing recovery 

of approximately 200% of class members’ damages.) and In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended 

Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, No. 10-md-02151 

(C.D. Cal.) (where Judge James V. Selna sua sponte identified Mr. Berman as a presumptive colead counsel and Hagens Berman secured a $1.6 billion settlement, the largest automobile class 

settlement in history at the time). Berman Decl., ¶¶ 8-9. And as noted in In re Stericycle, Inc., 

Sterisafe Contract Litig., which ultimately settled for $295 million, one judge remarked: 

But it must be said that the track record of Hagens Berman and its 

lead partner Steve Berman is even more impressive, having racked 

up such accomplishments as a $1.6 billion settlement in the Toyota 

Unintended Acceleration Litigation and a substantial number of 

really outstanding big-ticket results.

It may be worth mentioning that to this Court’s recollection it has 

had no first-hand judicial experience with either of the two finalist 

firms. . . . But that is not true of its colleagues in this District of 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 12 of 19
10

more recent vintage, an email inquiry to whom brought in return 

some high praise of attorney Berman’s skills.

Berman Decl., ¶ 10.

Hagens Berman also stands out for numerous appointments as class counsel on behalf of 

students. For example, Hagens Berman served as co-lead counsel for the Plaintiffs in landmark 

litigation in In re: USC Student Health Center Litigation, No. 2:18-cv-04258-SWB-GJS (C.D. 

Cal.). Berman Decl. ¶ 12. In that case, the court granted final approval to a $215 million 

settlement reached with USC and its former full-time gynecologist, Dr. George Tyndall, 

covering approximately 18,000 USC alumnae. Id. The settlement also required USC to 

implement important institutional changes as well. Id. The USC settlement is the largest-ever 

class resolution of sexual assault claims and first to incorporate equitable relief reforms ensuring 

institutional change and implemented a thoughtful, streamlined claims structure. Id. As another 

example, Hagens Berman secured a $208 million settlement on behalf of tens of thousands of 

current and former college-athletes in In re: NCAA Grant-In-Aid Cap Antitrust Litigation, No. 

4:14-md-02541-CW (N.D. Cal.). Id. ¶ 13. There, Hagens Berman served as co-lead class 

counsel for the Consolidated Plaintiffs. Id. Hagens Berman represented a class of studentathletes who received a scholarship package (called a grant-in-aid, or GIA) and sought damages 

based on the difference in athletically related financial aid they could have received under new 

NCAA rules allowing for athletically related aid up to the full “cost of attendance,” typically a 

few thousand dollars more per academic year. Id. In addition to securing the extensive 

settlement, the case included class-wide claims for injunctive relief, which Hagens Berman 

attorneys took to a successful bench trial. Id. Hagens Berman also served as co-lead counsel in 

In re: NCAA Student-Athlete Concussion Litigation, No. 13-cv-9116 (N.D. Ill.), brought on 

behalf of then-current and former NCAA student-athletes, which claimed that the NCAA had 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 13 of 19
11

been negligent and had breached its duty to (1) protect current and former student-athletes by 

failing to adopt rules regarding concussions and/or (2) manage the risks from concussions. Id. ¶ 

14. Hagens Berman sought and obtained medical monitoring relief for all qualifying current and 

former student-athletes, among other benefits. Id. Hagens Berman secured a $75 million 

settlement that implements a 50-year medical monitoring program for student-athletes to assess 

certain mid- to late-life onset brain diseases and disorders, and included injunctive relief 

provisions to be implemented at NCAA member schools regarding return-to-play guidelines 

schools must follow after an athlete’s head injury. Id. 

Anastopoulo Law Firm

The same holds true for Anastopoulo. Anastopoulo Law Firm was selected to lead the 

South Carolina consolidated Baycol litigation for the first two scheduled bellwether trials, and 

served as lead counsel in Reck v. Merck & Co (Texas Consolidated Litigation) set for trial prior 

to settlement. Relevant to this particular litigation Anastopoulo has been appointed lead counsel 

by Judge Jesse Furman in the In re Columbia Tuition Refund Litigation pending in the Southern 

District of New York, and in two cases in the District of Columbia against American University 

and The Catholic University of America.

Last year alone, Anastopoulo recovered nearly $60,000,000.00 for its clients and the team 

of lawyers that are working on this case have significant jury verdict and settlement experience 

having obtained more than $70,000,000.00 in verdicts and judgments in the last several years. 

The Firm brings these results, and importantly the resources of full advocacy team including four 

full time investigators, and an internal focus group and mock trial program that allow it to test 

and develop theories and case strategies from the outset to benefit the proposed Classes. 

Specific to this litigation, Anastopoulo currently has more than 30 class action cases 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 14 of 19
12

pending throughout the country related to college and university COVID-19 litigation, and has 

been appointed lead or co-lead counsel on the In Re Columbia University Tuition Refund Action

1:20-cv-03208-JMF (SDNY); Quereshi v. American University, 1:20-cv-01141-CRC (DCD); 

and Montesano v. Catholic University of America, 1:20-cv-01496 (DCD). Currently,

Anastopoulo has assembled an in-house team of five lawyers who are working exclusively on 

such cases, and has set aside the resources necessary to grow this team as needed. Collectively, 

the team has already spent more than 2,000 hours on research, drafting, and filings specific to the 

tuition refund litigation nationwide, providing efficiencies which are greatly beneficial to the 

proposed Classes in this case. 

III. PROPOSED CO-LEAD INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL ARE VERY FAMILIAR 

WITH THE APPLICABLE LAW 

Proposed Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel are also knowledgeable about the law 

applicable to the instant claims, as demonstrated by their experience litigating other multi-state 

class actions and complex litigation cases. As set forth above, the attorneys of Bursor & Fisher, 

Hagens Berman, and Anastopoulo have a long track record of successfully litigating and 

resolving large-scale consumer and complex actions. Proposed Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel 

and are also familiar with the applicable laws and practices of this District, as well as this Court’s 

rules and procedures, which will serve to minimize inefficiency in attorney time and litigation 

costs. Finally, Proposed Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel are well versed in contract law, and the 

requirements under this jurisdictions law for the claims made in this action.

IV. PROPOSED CO-LEAD INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL WILL COMMIT ALL 

NECESSARY RESOURCES TO REPRESENTING THE CLASS(ES)

The final Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(C)(i) factor, which concerns the resources counsel will 

commit to the case, also strongly supports the appointment of Anastopoulo, Bursor & Fisher, and 

Hagens Berman. Anastopoulo, Bursor & Fisher, and Hagens Berman are not small firms with 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 15 of 19
13

limited class action practices. Rather, they are well-established, successful law firms that have 

the resources and personnel necessary to pursue a case of this magnitude, as they have 

demonstrated in numerous similar class actions. As a result, the firms can fully utilize their 

resources and knowledge of class action practice to the direct benefit of Plaintiffs and the class 

members. Anastopoulo, Bursor & Fisher, and Hagens Berman have demonstrated the will and 

ability to commit the necessary resources to assure a strong and well-supported case on behalf of 

members of the proposed class. The firms’ resources are not merely financial, but also include 

substantial expertise and work-product developed in other similar cases which will benefit 

Plaintiffs and the putative class. Anastopoulo, Bursor & Fisher, and Hagens Berman’s ability to 

draw from this well-developed repository of information will also allow them to streamline the 

litigation. As interim class counsel, Anastopoulo, Bursor & Fisher, and Hagens Berman will 

continue to commit the same resources and effort to this case as they have committed to their 

other, successful class action litigations. Anastopoulo, Bursor & Fisher, and Hagens Berman 

have already established a team of attorneys to litigate this matter, ensuring the most organized 

and efficient representation of the putative class while avoiding duplicative and unnecessary 

work. 

On the litigation team from Anastopoulo are Eric M. Poulin and Roy T. Willey, IV. 

From Bursor & Fisher Sarah N. Westcot and Andrew Obergfell will staff the case. Hagens 

Berman’s team includes Steve W. Berman, Daniel J. Kurowski, and Whitney K. Siehl. Notably, 

proposed interim class counsel are currently working together on other actions involving similar 

claims against colleges and universities throughout the country, and will be able to draw on that 

experience and cooperative work to create efficiencies in this consolidated action. 

Proposed Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel has also worked cooperatively to involve 

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 16 of 19
14

counsel for all plaintiffs in this litigation, including counsel for Plaintiff Julie Gold. To that end, 

Proposed Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel intends to enlist the assistance of Ms. Gold’s counsel, 

Eggnatz Pascucci and Leeds Brown Law, P.C., as work in the case demands. Counsel for 

Plaintiff Gold recognizes the experience of Bursor & Fisher, Hagens Berman, and Anastopoulo 

and supports their appointment as co-lead interim class counsel.

CONCLUSION

In the interest of judicial economy, efficiency and for the best interests of the proposed 

classes Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court appoint the above-mentioned team of Bursor 

& Fisher, Hagens Berman, and Anastopoulo as co-lead interim class counsel. 

Dated: August 6, 2020 By: /s/ Sarah N. Westcot

Sarah N. Westcot (FBN: 1018272)

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (305) 330-5512 

Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 

swestcot@bursor.com 

Andrew J. Obergfell (pro hac vice)

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

888 Seventh Avenue

New York, NY 10019 

Telephone: (646) 837-7150 

aobergfell@bursor.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Dimitryuk

Roy T. Willey, IV (pro hac vice)

Eric M. Poulin (pro hac vice)

Justin S. Hemlepp (FBN: 58991)

ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM

32 Ann Street

Charleston, SC 29403

Telephone: 843-614-8888

Roy@akimlawfirm.com

Eric@akimlawfirm.com

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 17 of 19
15

JustinH@akimlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Dixon

Stuart Z. Grossman (FBN: 156113)

Rachel W. Furst (FBN: 45155)

GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, PA

2525 Ponce De Leon, Suite 1150

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Telephone: (305) 442-8666

szg@grossmanroth.com

rwf@grossmanroth.com

Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 

LLP

1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000

Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone: (206) 623-7292

steve@hbsslaw.com

Daniel J. Kurowski (pro hac vice)

Whitney K. Siehl (pro hac vice)

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 

LLP

455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410

Chicago, IL 60611

Telephone: (708) 628-4949

dank@hbsslaw.com

whitneys@hbsslaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Weiss

Joshua H. Eggnatz (FBN: 0067926)

Michael J. Pascucci (FBN: 0083397)

EGGNATZ PASCUCCI 

7450 Griffin Rd, Ste. 230 

Davie, FL 33314 

Tel: (954) 889-3359 

Fax: (954) 889-5913 

JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com 

Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 18 of 19
16

Jeffrey K. Brown (pro hac vice forthcoming)

Michael A. Tompkins (pro hac vice)

Brett R. Cohen (pro hac vice)

LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 

One Old Country Road, Suite 347 

Carle Place, NY 11514 

Tel: (516) 873-9550 

jbrownl@leedsbrownlaw.com 

mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com 

bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Gold

CERTIFICATION OF MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS

Undersigned, through Sarah N. Westcot, conferred with counsel for Defendant Eric 

Isicoff on this motion who indicated that Defendant will not be taking a position on plaintiffs’ 

leadership motion.

By: /s/ Sarah N. Westcot

 Sarah N. Westcot

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via CM/ECF 

this 6th day of August, 2020 on all parties of record. 

 By: /s/ Sarah N. Westcot

 Sarah N. Westcot

Case 0:20-cv-60851-AHS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/06/2020 Page 19 of 19