Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Elaine Merz v. Ford Motor Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 15, 2013

ELAINE MERZ
v.
FORD MOTOR CORP.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Dale S. Fischer, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM

Present: The Honorable DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge

Debra Plato Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause re Adequacy of Class Counsel

Although adequacy of counsel is ordinarily determined after class certification, it appears an early preliminary determination of whether Plaintiff's counsel would be adequate class counsel would serve the interests of the putative class and of judicial economy. Therefore, Plaintiff's counsel is ordered to show cause why they would be adequate counsel to represent the class if a class were certified. In appointing class counsel, the Court:

(A) 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

(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class;

(B) may consider any other matter pertinent to counsel's ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class;

(C) may order potential class counsel to provide information on any subject pertinent to the appointment and to propose terms for attorney's fees and nontaxable costs.

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

A written response must be submitted no later than April 29, 2013. The response should provide full and complete information responsive to Rule 23(g)(1)(A) and (B), and sufficient for the Court to make an informed decision. The response should also provide any agreement between Plaintiff and counsel (which may be filed in camera and under seal), any agreement relating to this action with any other person or entity, and counsel's proposal for terms for attorney's fees and nontaxable costs. See Rule 23(g)(1)(C).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130415

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.