consider when making a class certification decision, whether for purposes of to assess a proposed settlement. Best Practice 10A: In MDL proceedings involving multiple actions that include putative class actions, the court should determine, in connection with an early and prompt initial conference with the parties, the nature and scope of the leadership structure it intends to appoint, including whether the appointment of Interim Class Counsel under Rule 23(g) is necessary or appropriate, and should specify and delineate with appropriate precision the roles and responsibilities of the counsel it appoints to leadership positions. In contemporary practice, as the result of the concentration of putative actions in the federal court system after the Class Action Fairness Act expanded federal diversity jurisdiction to include most cases brought as class actions, and the availability of centralization of such actions before a single court under the multidistrict litigation statute, the challenges presented by the existence of competing or overlapping class actions in different jurisdictions have become less acute. There may still be some situations where multiple class actions are pending in different federal courts because no party has sought MDL centralization (or because the JPML has denied it), or a putative class action that overlaps with centralized federal class actions is pending in a state court. Much has been written regarding the effective coordination by federal judges, particularly MDL transferee judges, with their judicial colleagues in related state court litigation, and such guidelines and best practices will go far in meeting the challenges of coordination where putative class actions are pending in related federal and state proceedings. Those counsel appointed by the federal court, either as Interim Class Counsel or to more traditional lead counsel/PSC roles, should be expected to coordinate with their state court counterparts in the
consider when making a class certification decision, whether for purposes of to assess a proposed settlement. Best Practice 10A: In MDL proceedings involving multiple actions that include putative class actions, the court should determine, in connection with an early and prompt initial conference with the parties, the nature and scope of the leadership structure it intends to appoint, including whether the appointment of Interim Class Counsel under Rule 23(g) is necessary or appropriate, and should specify and delineate with appropriate precision the roles and responsibilities of the counsel it appoints to leadership positions. In contemporary practice, as the result of the concentration of putative actions in the federal court system after the Class Action Fairness Act expanded federal diversity jurisdiction to include most cases brought as class actions, and the availability of centralization of such actions before a single court under the multidistrict litigation statute, the challenges presented by the existence of competing or overlapping class actions in different jurisdictions have become less acute. There may still be some situations where multiple class actions are pending in different federal courts because no party has sought MDL centralization (or because the JPML has denied it), or a putative class action that overlaps with centralized federal class actions is pending in a state court. Much has been written regarding the effective coordination by federal judges, particularly MDL transferee judges, with their judicial colleagues in related state court litigation, and such guidelines and best practices will go far in meeting the challenges of coordination where putative class actions are pending in related federal and state proceedings. Those counsel appointed by the federal court, either as Interim Class Counsel or to more traditional lead counsel/PSC roles, should be expected to coordinate with their state court counterparts in the
Class-Actions-Best-Practices-for-comment-5.29.18.docx