2
., No. 7:26-cv-03756 (JGLC)(JCM) (S.D.N.Y.) (the Campbell Romero Action and the Campbell filed the instant motion to consolidate both actions and to appoint interim co-lead counsel. (Docket No. 18). The motion to consolidate is unopposed, and Defendant takes no position on the motion to appoint interim co-lead counsel. (Id. at 2). For the reasons that follow, both motions are granted.2
I. LEGAL STANDARDS
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a court may consolidate actions if they discretion to determine whether Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899
determining whether to consolidate actions, courts may
h favors consolidation, but must ensure that consolidation will Navarro v. Oscar Health, Inc., 26 Civ. 2861 (JPC), 26
Civ. 3008 (JPC), 2026 WL 1584663, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2026) (quoting Johnson, 899 F.2d ces in causes of action, defendants, or the class period do not render consolidation inappropriate if the cases present sufficiently common questions of fact and law, and the differences do not outweigh the interests of judicial economy served by Kaplan v. Gelfond, 240 F.R.D. 88, 91 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(
counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a
3
represent the interests of In appointing interim class counsel, ounsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in ce in handling class actions . . . and the types of claims asserted licable law; and (iv) the resources that counsel Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(i)-(iv). Courts may also
and adequately represent the
R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B).
II. DISCUSSION
A. Consolidation Plaintiffs maintain that consolidation is appropriate here because from the same questions of law and fact [and] from the same event, involving alleged exposure of personal information maintained by Defendant . . . and assert sim
3). Plaintiffs further assert rests of convenience, judicial economy, and cost reductions, and will not risk prejudice to any pa r coordinated motion and Id. at 3). The Court agrees.
Here, both actions involve claims that Defendant failed to information during the same alleged data breach, thus, the Court finds that these actions are justify consolidation, in the interest of justice and to avoid overlap and McChesney v. Hogan
(DNH/DEP), 2009 WL 607398, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2008), report and recommendation adopted, 2009 WL 607398 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009). Furthermore, Defendant does not oppose consolidation, (Docket No. 18 at 2), and thus, no party would be prejudiced by consolidating the
4
actions. Moreover, consolidation will promote judicial economy, ensure a coordinated discovery schedule and motion practice, and avoid inconsistent rulings. See Navarro, 2026 WL 1584663, e judicial convenience and economy, while also
avoiding unnecessary costs to the there is no indication that consolidating these actions will result in an unfair trial.
to consolidate is granted and the Romero
Action is deemed the lead case.
B. Appointment of Interim Class Counsel
Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint Leanna A. Loginov of Shamis & Gentile, P.A., and Mariya Weekes of Milberg, PLLC, as interim co-lead counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). (Docket No. 18 at 1). Upon review of the instant application, the Court finds that Ms. Loginov and Ms. Weekes meet the four factors enumerated in Rule 23(g). Regarding the first factor, courts must consider
or investigating potential claims
onducted their own thorough and independent
investigation of the data breach that gave rise to this class
rmation. (Docket No. 18 at 4-6). Considering their extensive knowledge of the underlying facts, pertinent issues, and alleged injuries to Pl that the work done thus far by the Proposed Interim [Co-Lead] Counsel in identifying or investigating potential claims weighs in favor
Buonasera v. Honest Co., Inc., 318 F.R.D. 17, 18 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). xperience in handling class actions . . . and
the types of claims asserted in
5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii). Ms. Logino extensive experience in the realm of data privacy litigation, including actively litigating over a hundred data breach class actions throughout the c
lead counsel in several other data breach class actions. (Docket No. 18 at 6-9). In addition, Ms. Weekes, a former Florida State Circuit Court Judge and current partner at Milberg, PLLC, has eadership in numerous privacy class actions, including as lead
or co-lead counsel in the largest Id. at 9-12). Thus, the Court
e deep knowledge not only of class action law
and procedure, but also of substantive [consumer protection and In re: Int. Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig., 16-MD-2704 (PAE), 16-MC-2704 (PAE), 2016 WL 4131846, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2016). The Court also finds that proposed counsel
Organics, LLC, 21 CV 3521 (VB), 2022 WL 4661454, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2022). The final factor that courts must consider is counsel will commit to )(1)(A)(iv). Proposed interim co-lead counsel
assert that they have already committed and will continue to commit financial resources to see this litigation through its conclusion, including trial. (Docket No. 18 at 12-13). In addition, they merely financial, but also include substantial
expertise and work-product developed in other similar cases, which will benefit Plaintiffs and the Id. at 12). Therefore, the fourth factor is met.
Ms. Loginov and Ms. Weekes as interim co-
lead counsel is granted.