Carella Byrne Litigator Picked as Interim Lead Counsel in Samsung MDL

U.S. District Judge Christine O’Hearn for New Jersey in Camden signed an initial case management order Monday (docket 1:23-md-03055) appointing James Cecchi, founder and director of Carella Byrne's class-action practice in Roseland, New Jersey, as the plaintiffs’ interim lead counsel in the consolidated data breach cases against Samsung.

O’Hearn, who was assigned the cases for pretrial consolidation under a Feb. 1 order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (see 2302020002), set a March 23 deadline for Cecchi to show the court the plaintiffs’ proposal for “an appropriate leadership structure,” said her order. A joint agenda and status report also is due March 23, it said. O’Hearn’s order also scheduled an in-person initial case management conference for April 6 at 10 a.m. in Camden.

Cecchi, whose name was misspelled “Checchi” in O’Hearn’s order, is an attorney of record in Dipaola v. Samsung Electronics America (docket 2:22-cv-05724), one of the first-filed Samsung class actions in the District of New Jersey. The case was filed Sept. 26 and assigned to U.S. District Judge William Martini in Newark.

Martini was repeatedly mentioned by plaintiffs in motions before the JPML as a top candidate for presiding over the consolidated cases if the panel ultimately decided to transfer them to the Newark courthouse. The panel’s choice of O'Hearn in Camden came as somewhat of a surprise.

Cecchi is also the attorney of record in Gonzalez v. T-Mobile (docket 2:23-cv-00367), one of the first-filed class actions nationally stemming from T-Mobile’s Jan. 19 disclosure of a massive data breach. Filed Jan. 23, it was assigned to U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti in Newark. It’s one of about a dozen T-Mobile class actions awaiting JPML action on a motion to transfer the cases to U.S. District Court in Western Washington for Seattle and consolidate them under a single judge (see 2302200001).

O’Hearn “will exercise the power of appointment” over the plaintiffs’ leadership structure, and will approve members of the leadership “fairly, transparently, and on the basis of merit,” said her order. She desires “to appoint individuals, not firms, who have the time and resources available to effectuate the just and efficient resolution of this litigation,” it said. All leadership appointments are for a period of one year, it said: “Each appointee must request reappointment for continued service thereafter.”

The judge “is committed to the diversity of MDL leadership,” said her order. “Given the multitude of claims in this MDL from diverse Plaintiffs across the country, diverse leadership is integral to the success of these proceedings,” it said.

Prominent in the proposed leadership structure report due March 23 will be the designation of “liaison counsel,” to act as the primary contact between the court and the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said O’Hearn’s order. It instructed the leadership to indicate “how you plan to fund the case including whether you anticipate any third-party funding and if so, from whom and describe the amount of control the funder(s) will have over the litigation strategy and settlement decisions,” it said.

The leadership structure also will specify the procedures that will be used “to monitor billing, control costs, and avoid duplication of efforts of counsel and the process for assignment and monitoring of work,” said the order. O’Hearn also wants to know “how you propose to maintain communication and input from lawyers not part of the leadership structure,” it said.