The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Wilkie Farr & Gallagher 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 SEYBERT, District Judge:
On January 4, 2011, four of the five above-captioned cases (Finkel, Canfield, Ahearn, and Dudley) were transferred to the undersigned from Judge Feuerstein's docket.*fn1 In the fifth, the Pearlman case, the Plaintiffs have moved to (1) consolidate all of the cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, and (2) have their counsel (Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP, the Law Office of Todd J. Krouner, and Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLC, collectively the "Shalov-Krouner Group") appointed interim lead counsel pending the class-certification decision pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(2)(A)*fn2 . See Docket Entry 9. On the first point, all of the parties have agreed that consolidation of the actions would serve the interest of judicial economy. In response to the consolidation motion, Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC ("Cablevision" or "Defendants") requested a schedule for filing a consolidated amended complaint that would supersede the pending complaints and reset the response deadlines. (See Defts.' Opp., p. 4.)
The Canfield, Ahearn, and Dudley plaintiffs, however, cross-move to object to the interim lead counsel candidacy of the Shalov-Krouner Group. (See Pearlman Docket Entry 17.) In their view, the Court should appoint their counsel, Stamell & Schager, LLP and the Law Office of Michael C. Rakower, P.C. (the "SchagerRakower Group") as interim lead counsel. For the reasons discussed below, the Pearlman Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate and appoint interim lead counsel is GRANTED. Defendants' request for a consolidated amended complaint superseding the five pending complaints is GRANTED.
DISCUSSION I. Consolidation
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that "[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). In deciding whether to consolidate cases, the trial courts are vested with "broad discretion." Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284 (2d Cir. 1990). An invaluable and economizing tool of judicial administration, Rule 42 should be liberally employed "to expedite trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion." Devlin v. Transp. Commc'n Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999). In exercising its discretion, the trial court must weigh the efficiency gains against the risk of prejudice to the parties and possible confusion of the issues. Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1285.
Here, mindful that all of the parties agree that
consolidation is appropriate, the Court finds that the gains in judicial economy outweigh any prejudice that might result. Each of the five sets of Plaintiffs endeavors to represent the same class of individuals and alleges virtually identical causes of action rooted in virtually identical factual allegations. Accordingly, the motion to consolidate pursuant to Rule 42 is GRANTED.
II. A Consolidated Amended Complaint "Directing discovery to one complaint, rather than to [numerous] complaints, avoids the possible confusion and the possible problems stemming from the situation where each plaintiff pursues his individual complaint." Katz v. Realty Equities Corp. of New York, 521 F.2d 1354, 1359-60 (2d Cir. 1975). For this reason, a consolidated pleading is an efficient way to address multiple related cases. Id. A single pleading in a single action, moreover, appropriately "serve[s] as the vehicle for defining the proposed class and deciding class certification." Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.26 (4th ed. 2004).
The Plaintiffs are directed to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the entry of this Order. Within twenty-one (21) days of the service on Defendants of the Consolidated Amended Complaint, Defendants shall answer, move with respect to, or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. Defendants need not respond to the constituent complaints that are the subject of this consolidation Order.
III. Interim Lead Counsel
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(2)(A) provides for
the designation of interim lead counsel in situations where there are various counsel jousting for class counsel appointment in the pre-certification stage. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2)(A) committee note. The appointment of interim lead counsel, among other things, clarifies responsibility for the protection of the interests of the putative class during pre-certification motions, discovery, and settlement activity. See Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.11 (4th ed. 2004). In appointing proper class counsel, the Court considers the following factors: (a) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims; (b) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (c) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and (d) the resources counsel will commit to representing the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A); In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litig., 252 F.R.D. 184, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Here, four of the five groups of plaintiffs' counsel involved in Cablevision litigation have agreed to jointly prosecute their clients claims, with the Shalov-Krouner Group serving as lead counsel. (See Docket Entry 20-2, Krouner Declaration ¶ 6.)*fn3 The Shalov-Krouner Group's resources include thirty-three attorneys spread among eight offices in New York City, Westchester, Long Island, and in Union and Monmouth Counties in New Jersey. By contrast, the Schager-Rakower Group has six attorneys in two Manhattan offices. The Shalov-Krouner Group's greater depth suggests that it is better suited to safeguarding the putative class's interests. To the extent that it has received facts ...