Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 1 of 18
`
`The Honorable Richard A. Jones
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`
`
`MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
`INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL
`AND PLAINTIFFS’ EXECUTIVE
`COMMITTEE
`
`NOTE FOR MOTION CALENDAR:
`January 27, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, CHRISTIAN
`SABOL, SAMANTHIA RUSSELL, ARTHUR
`SCHAREIN, LIONEL KEROS, NATHAN
`CHANEY, CHRIS GULLEY, SHERYL
`TAYLOR-HOLLY, ANTHONY COURTNEY,
`DAVE WESTROPE, STACY DUTILL,
`SARAH ARRINGTON, MARY ELLIOT,
`HEATHER GEESEY, STEVE MORTILLARO,
`CHAUNDA LEWIS, ADRIAN HENNEN,
`GLENDA R. HILL, GAIL MURPHY,
`PHYLLIS HUSTER, and GERRY
`KOCHENDORFER, on behalf of themselves
`and all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`010888-11/2120173 V2
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000, SEATTLE, WA 98101
`206.623.7292 206.623.0594 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 2 of 18
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................1 
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................2 
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Counsel Have Already Done Substantial Work To Litigate
`Amazon’s MFN Clause............................................................................................3 
`
`Counsel Have Significant Experience With Complex Class Actions
`And Deep Knowledge Of Antitrust Law And Problems Posed By
`Large Technology Firms ..........................................................................................4 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Hagens Berman ............................................................................................5 
`
`Keller Postman .............................................................................................6 
`
`Quinn Emanuel ............................................................................................8 
`
`Keller Rohrback .........................................................................................10 
`
`Counsel Will Bring Extensive Human and Financial Resources to
`Litigate These Proposed Class Actions..................................................................11 
`
`Counsel Bring Diverse Backgrounds, Experiences, And
`Perspectives To The Case ......................................................................................12 
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................12 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MOTION TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP - i
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`010888-11/2120173 V2
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000, SEATTLE, WA 98101
`206.623.7292 206.623.0594 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`McFadden v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2020 WL 5642822 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 22, 2020) ......................................................................2
`
`In re Stubhub Refund Litig.,
`2020 WL 8669823 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2020) ..........................................................................1
`
`In re WorldCom, Inc. ERISA Litig.,
`2004 WL 2338151 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2004) ..........................................................................10
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B) ............................................................................................................12
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(i) ..........................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii) ..................................................................................................4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(iv) ......................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`MOTION TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP - ii
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`010888-11/2120173 V2
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000, SEATTLE, WA 98101
`206.623.7292 206.623.0594 FAX
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), the Court “may designate interim
`counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a
`class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The court should “designate interim counsel during the pre-
`certification period if necessary to protect the interests of the putative class.” In re Stubhub
`Refund Litig., 2020 WL 8669823, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2020). Appointment of lead counsel
`is necessary because Plaintiffs recently learned of a substantially similar proposed class action
`recently filed in the Southern District of New York. See Dkt. 80. To avoid duplicative efforts,
`minimize costs, and avoid risks to the Class by conflicting representation, Plaintiffs seek leave to
`appoint their counsel as interim lead counsel. Plaintiffs further propose a leadership structure for
`the current proposed class action, consisting of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (“Hagens
`Berman”) and Keller Postman LLC (“Keller Postman”) as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, as
`well as Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (“Quinn Emanuel”) and Keller Rohrback
`L.L.P. (“Keller Rohrback”) as members of a Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (“PEC”).
`These appointments are warranted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3).
`The above firms have already invested substantial time and resources to investigate, file, and
`litigate the claims at issue in the proposed class actions. They have deep experience prosecuting
`complex class actions and antitrust cases and will bring that experience, and the firms’ vast
`resources, to these cases. Counsel will coordinate closely with one another to prosecute the class
`actions efficiently and effectively, without duplication of effort, and will represent the diversity
`of our society and the legal profession with their varied backgrounds and experiences. Plaintiffs,
`therefore, respectfully request that the Court adopt the proposed leadership structure.
`II.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`The above firms are counsel in the current action on behalf of consumers who were
`harmed by Amazon’s anticompetitive conduct. In March 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint
`alleging that in Amazon’s agreement with third-party merchants that sell products on its
`platform, Amazon imposed a “most favored nation” (MFN) clause to prevent those merchants
`from selling their products for lower prices on competing online platforms. This resulted in
`
`MOTION TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP - 1
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`010888-11/2120173 V2
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000, SEATTLE, WA 98101
`206.623.7292 206.623.0594 FAX
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`supra-competitive prices for those products, both on Amazon’s platform and on competing
`online platforms. In March 2022, the Court denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’
`federal monopoly and rule of reason antitrust claims and allowed Plaintiffs to amend their
`dismissed claims (Dkt. 48). While Amazon’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended claims is
`pending before this Court, after the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Amazon’s
`participation in a 26(f) conference (Dkt. 63), the parties have proceeded to discovery over the
`last several months. See Dkt. 70 (discovery case schedule). Meanwhile, Plaintiffs’ counsel first
`learned on December 30 of the substantially similar action filed in the Southern District of New
`York in November 2022—nearly three years after the filing of the instant action.
`The proposed leadership structure fairly recognizes Hagens Berman’s and Keller
`Rohrback’s innovative work in filing the original consumer class action against Amazon, and
`Keller Postman’s and Quinn Emanuel’s role furthering the litigation. All Plaintiffs also agree that
`this leadership structure will facilitate the efficient and successful litigation of all proposed class
`actions, particularly given that the four firms in the proposed leadership structure also serve as
`counsel in the related case, De Coster, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ (W.D.
`Wash.) (the “De Coster” action).
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Rule 23(g)(3) allows the Court to designate interim class counsel “to act on behalf of a
`putative class before determining whether to certify a matter as a class action.” McFadden v.
`Microsoft Corp., 2020 WL 5642822, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 22, 2020). “Factors relevant to the
`appointment of counsel include: ‘(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.’” Id.
`(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)). In addition, “[t]he Court may also ‘consider any other
`matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.’”
`Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B)). This includes consideration of whether the leadership
`team reflects the diversity of the class and the legal bar.
`
`MOTION TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP - 2
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`010888-11/2120173 V2
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000, SEATTLE, WA 98101
`206.623.7292 206.623.0594 FAX
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`A.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`Counsel Have Already Done Substantial Work To Litigate Amazon’s MFN Clause
`Hagens Berman, Keller Postman, Quinn Emanuel, and Keller Rohrback have each
`already expended significant resources to investigate and to pursue antitrust claims arising out of
`Amazon’s MFN clause. Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(i)—“the work counsel has done in identifying or
`investigating potential claims in the action”—thus strongly favors their leadership appointments.
`Hagens Berman filed the instant action on March 19, 2020, and led the litigation. The
`50-page original complaint reflects Hagens Berman’s extensive pre-filing factual investigation
`into Amazon’s MFN clause and its anticompetitive effects, and a careful legal analysis of the
`relevant markets in which Amazon operates and has harmed competition. Hagens Berman
`further invested significant resources, and has continued to investigate and refine allegations of
`Amazon’s antitrust violations, as reflected in its 90-page amended complaint and in leading
`Plaintiffs’ opposition to Amazon’s motion to dismiss (Dkts. 15 and 19). This Court denied in
`part Amazon’s motion (Dkt. 48) and “allowed much of Plaintiff’s case to move forward.” (Dkt.
`63). Hagens Berman has continued to lead the litigation in the discovery phase and in preparation
`for Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The firm was appointed co-lead with Keller Postman
`in the related De Coster action.
`Keller Postman has assisted in discovery and motion practice and was appointed co-lead
`counsel in the related De Coster action. Keller Postman has litigated Amazon’s anticompetitive
`conduct and the effects of its MFN clause on behalf of close to 50,000 Amazon consumers in
`individual arbitrations. Declaration of Zina Bash in Support of Motion for Appointment of
`Interim Lead Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (“Bash Decl.”), at ¶ 8. The firm
`began filing arbitration demands on behalf of those consumers in January 2021. Id. Before that,
`Keller Postman had spent months investigating the anticompetitive nature of Amazon’s MFN
`clause and the harmful effects on Amazon’s customers. Id. As in the complaints at issue here, the
`50,000 consumers whom Keller Postman represented in arbitration alleged that they overpaid for
`products on Amazon because of Amazon’s MFN clause. Id.
`
`MOTION TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP - 3
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`010888-11/2120173 V2
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000, SEATTLE, WA 98101
`206.623.7292 206.623.0594 FAX
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`What’s more, it was Keller Postman’s innovative arbitration practice that made possible
`the consumer class actions against Amazon at issue here. For years, Amazon had imposed on its
`consumers a mandatory arbitration provision that specifically prohibited class actions. This
`changed only when Keller Postman filed tens of thousands of individual arbitration demands
`against Amazon, including demands raising the same antitrust theories at issue in De Coster and
`West. The pressure created by Keller Postman’s vigorous arbitration demands prompted Amazon
`to withdraw its mandatory arbitration provision, allowing the De Coster and West Plaintiffs to
`pursue their claims in court. See Sara Randazzo, Amazon Faced 75,000 Arbitration Demands.
`Now It Says: Fine, Sue Us, WALL STREET J. (June 1, 2021), https://www.wsj.com/articles/
`amazon-faced-75-000-arbitration-demands-now-it-says-fine-sue-us-11622547000.
`Quinn Emanuel and Keller Rohrback have also invested significant resources litigating
`Amazon’s anticompetitive restrictions. Quinn Emanuel was co-counsel with Keller Postman in
`litigating many of the tens of thousands of individual arbitration demands against Amazon that
`resulted in Amazon removing its arbitration clause, and has assisted in motion practice and
`discovery in this action, and Keller Rohrback coordinated with Hagens Berman to file and
`litigate this action since it was filed in March 2020. Quinn Emanuel and Keller Rohrback have
`been appointed to the executive committee in the De Coster action. Declaration of Steig D.
`Olson in Support of Motion for Appointment of Interim Lead Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Executive
`Committee (“Olson Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-4.
`
`B.
`
`Counsel Have Significant Experience With Complex Class Actions And Deep
`Knowledge Of Antitrust Law And Problems Posed By Large Technology Firms
`
`Hagens Berman, Keller Postman, Quinn Emanuel, and Keller Rohrback have vast
`experience with and knowledge of antitrust cases. Together, counsel represent the most robust
`team of lawyers that could be assembled to litigate an antitrust class action against one of the
`world’s biggest companies. Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii)—“counsel’s experience in handling class
`actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action” and “counsel’s
`knowledge of the applicable law”—strongly favors the proposed leadership structure.
`
`MOTION TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP - 4
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`010888-11/2120173 V2
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000, SEATTLE, WA 98101
`206.623.7292 206.623.0594 FAX
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`1.
`Hagens Berman
`Hagens Berman has decades of experience representing class plaintiffs in antitrust cases,
`which has culminated in several awards and its current prominent role in some of the nation’s
`biggest ongoing antitrust class actions. Declaration of Steve W. Berman in Support of Motion for
`Appointment of Interim Lead Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (“Berman Decl.”), ¶
`4 and Ex. A (firm resume). As two recent examples, acting as lead counsel, Hagens Berman
`recently settled app developers’ claims against both Google and Apple in In re Google Play
`Store Antitrust Litig., No. 3:21-md-02981-JD (N.D. Cal.), and Cameron v. Apple Inc., No. 4:19-
`03074-YGR (N.D. Cal.), in cases alleging that these tech giants wrongfully obtained monopoly
`power over the distribution of apps and in-app products, collectively settling for $185 million.
`Hagens Berman is co-lead counsel in Klein v. Meta Platforms Inc, No. 5:20-cv-08570 (N.D.
`Cal.), a class action, alleging that Facebook exploited user data to maintain its market power. Id.
`¶ 7; Ex. B (listing examples of the firm’s antitrust cases).
`
`Steve Berman is the founding partner of Hagens Berman and the nationwide managing
`partner of its nine offices. Id. ¶ 1. Mr. Berman has served as lead or co-lead counsel in antitrust,
`securities, consumer, products liability, and employment class actions, and complex litigations
`too numerous to count. Id. ¶ 4. For example, Mr. Berman served as co-lead trial and appellate
`counsel in Alston v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (In re NCAA Ath. Grant-In-Aid Cap
`Antitrust Litig.), No. 14-md-02541-CW (N.D. Cal.). Mr. Berman obtained a $208 million
`damages settlement on behalf of tens of thousands of current and former NCAA Division 1
`college athletes and prevailed at a separate trial on injunctive relief. A unanimous Supreme Court
`affirmed the injunction prohibiting the NCAA from restricting the education-related benefits that
`its members may offer student athletes under the rule of reason and rejected the NCAA’s request
`that its compensation restrictions be analyzed under an extremely deferential standard. Id. ¶ 3.
`Mr. Berman has a record of securing significant settlements for plaintiffs. As co-lead counsel,
`with only one other firm, in In re Visa Check/Mastercard Antitrust Litig., No. 96-cv-05238
`(E.D.N.Y.), he secured a settlement on the eve of trial for over $3 billion in cash and over $20
`billion in injunctive relief, making it one of the largest antitrust settlements in history. Id. Mr.
`MOTION TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP - 5
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`010888-11/2120173 V2
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000, SEATTLE, WA 98101
`206.623.7292 206.623.0594 FAX
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`Berman and his firm also represented 13 states in the historic litigation against the tobacco
`industry and served as co-lead trial counsel to secure a global settlement worth $206 billion, still
`the largest recovery in history. Id. ¶ 5. In In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration
`Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products Liability Litigation, No.10-ml-2151 JVS (FMOx) (C.D.
`Cal.), the court sua sponte identified Mr. Berman as a presumptive co-lead counsel. Id.; see also
`¶¶ 4-5 (other notable cases and awards). Mr. Berman is also counsel in the related De Coster
`action, where the firm was appointed interim co-lead.
`Barbara Mahoney is an attorney at Hagens Berman and counsel in the related De Coster
`action, and in In Re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-351-GHW-DCF
`(S.D.N.Y), where the firm was also appointed interim lead counsel on behalf of a proposed class
`action against Amazon and the five largest trade book publishers for conspiring to fix the price of
`eBooks. Id. ¶ 8. She is also counsel in two other antitrust class action lawsuits against Amazon
`and in In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Multi-District Litigation, No. 2:16-md-
`02724 (E.D. Pa.), where the firm was appointed to the interim direct purchaser steering
`committee in a multi-district class action litigation alleging conspiracies among dozens of
`generic drug manufacturers to fix the prices of over 150 generic drugs. Id. ¶¶ 8-9; see also id
`(listing other notable cases).
`2.
`Keller Postman
`After being formed in 2018 by veterans of the defense bar, Keller Postman has become
`one of the leading complex litigation firms for plaintiffs. See Bash Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. F (firm
`resume). The firm serves hundreds of thousands of clients in litigation and arbitration matters
`and acts as plaintiffs’ counsel in high-stakes class and public-enforcement actions. Keller
`Postman’s complex litigation practice includes high-profile antitrust and consumer-rights cases.
`See id. ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. F. For example, the firm represents several States in a multi-state antitrust
`case against Google, The State of Texas, et al. v. Google, LLC, No. 4:20-cv-00957 (E.D. Tex.).
`The firm is also lead counsel in a class action against LinkedIn for its inflated ad metrics,
`TopDevz, LLC, et al. v. LinkedIn Corp., 5:20-cv-08324-SVK (N.D. Cal.).
`
`MOTION TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP - 6
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`010888-11/2120173 V2
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000, SEATTLE, WA 98101
`206.623.7292 206.623.0594 FAX
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`Keller Postman’s lawyers have been recognized nationally for developing
`groundbreaking legal arguments and strategies. For example, the firm has pioneered the strategy
`of pursuing individual arbitrations for tens of thousands of employees and consumers
`simultaneously, which, as reported by the New York Times, has left defendants “scared to death.”
`See Bash Decl., Ex. F. In connection with that practice, and in thwarting a defendant’s attempt to
`avoid its own arbitration clause, a judge of the L.A. Superior Court recently praised the firm’s
`work, commenting “Let’s give [the] … Keller Firm … a toast. Good work.” Id. ¶ 4, Ex. C. The
`firm has won numerous precedent-setting victories requiring defendants to comply with
`arbitration obligations they impose on customers and associates.
`Zina G. Bash is a Partner at Keller Postman, where she founded the firm’s Texas office.
`Before joining the firm, Ms. Bash served as senior counsel to the Texas Attorney General. In that
`capacity, she coordinated major multi-state cases with attorneys general across the country, and
`she advised on significant litigation and antitrust matters. Previously, she practiced as a litigator
`at the Washington D.C. office of Gibson Dunn. Ms. Bash also served as a law clerk to Justice
`Samuel Alito of the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice Brett Kavanaugh when he sat on the U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Ms. Bash was born in Monterrey, Mexico and is a native
`Spanish speaker.
`Ms. Bash is counsel in the related De Coster case. Ms. Bash is counsel for the States of
`Texas, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota in the
`multi-state antitrust litigation against Google mentioned above. She also represents the State of
`Texas in an enforcement action against Meta Platforms, Inc. regarding its collection and use of
`biometric identifiers, The State of Texas v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 22-0121 (Harrison Cty.).
`She was also part of the Keller Postman team that repress.ented tens of thousands of claimants
`pursuing antitrust claims against Amazon in individual arbitrations. More broadly, Ms. Bash has
`served as counsel or advisor for public-entity plaintiffs in numerous high-profile and complex
`matters. Bash Decl. ¶ 10. Ms. Bash has received several awards for her work, including an award
`for minority women in leadership positions by Profiles in Diversity Journal. She has been named
`
`MOTION TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP - 7
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`010888-11/2120173 V2
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000, SEATTLE, WA 98101
`206.623.7292 206.623.0594 FAX
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`a Plaintiffs’ Attorney Trailblazer and an Elite Woman of the Plaintiffs’ Bar by The National Law
`Journal, and a Trailblazer in the South by The American Lawyer.
`Warren D. Postman is the Managing Partner of Keller Postman. He has been recognized
`by Lawdragon as one of the 500 Leading Lawyers in America and was selected as one of the
`National Law Journal’s Plaintiff’s Lawyers Trailblazers for his work building the firm’s mass
`arbitration practice. Mr. Postman has also been recognized by Chambers & Partners with an
`esteemed Band 1 ranking in the Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs category for the District of
`Columbia. Before joining the firm, Mr. Postman was Vice President and Chief Counsel for
`Appellate Litigation at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center and an attorney at Jones Day. Mr.
`Postman served as a law clerk to Justice David Souter at the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge
`William A. Fletcher of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
`Mr. Postman is counsel in the related De Coster case. Mr. Postman has litigated major
`antitrust matters for both defendants and plaintiffs. For example, he represented Sirius XM in its
`defense of private antitrust claims in Blessing v. Sirius XM, No. 09-cv-10035 (S.D.N.Y.). He also
`represents several States in the litigation against Google, as well as consumer plaintiffs pursuing
`antitrust claims against Live Nation and Ticketmaster in Olivia Van Iderstine, et al. v. Live
`Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al., No. 2:20-cv-03888 (C.D. Cal.). Mr. Postman also led the
`representation of over 100,000 clients who pursued antitrust claims in individual arbitrations.
`Jessica B. Beringer is an Associate at the firm, where she represents clients in high-
`stakes disputes, including consumer and antitrust matters. Ms. Beringer is a graduate of the
`University of Virginia School of Law and represents the State of Texas in the enforcement
`matter mentioned above.
`3.
`Quinn Emanuel
`Quinn Emanuel is the world’s largest law firm devoted solely to business litigation.
`Quinn Emanuel has been named a “litigation powerhouse” by The American Lawyer, a “global
`force in litigation” by The Wall Street Journal, one of “The Four Firms that GCs Fear The Most”
`by BTI Consulting Group, a “Tier One” antitrust practice by Benchmark Litigation, “Antitrust
`Litigation Department of the Year” by The Recorder, and “Class Action Group of the Year” by
`
`MOTION TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP - 8
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`010888-11/2120173 V2
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000, SEATTLE, WA 98101
`206.623.7292 206.623.0594 FAX
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`Law360. Olson Decl., Exs. H-L. Quinn Emanuel has a long string of victories on behalf of
`antitrust and class plaintiffs and defendants. See, e.g., In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 13-md-02476 (S.D.N.Y.) (obtaining over $1.87 billion in settlements); ISDAfix Antitrust
`Litig., No. 14-cv-7126 (S.D.N.Y.) (obtaining more than $500 million in settlements); see also
`Olson Decl. ¶¶ 6-7 (listing cases). Quinn Emanuel currently serves on the executive committee
`in the related De Coster action, and as interim co-lead counsel in In re Valve Antitrust Litigation,
`No. 2:21-cv-044563-JCC (W.D. Wash.). Olson Decl. ¶ 4.
`Steig D. Olson was one of the principal attorneys in In re: Credit Default Swaps Antitrust
`Litigation, resulting in one of the largest antitrust class actions in history. See Olson Decl. ¶ 8.
`The mediator there declared that “this was one of the finest examples of efficient and effective
`lawyering by plaintiffs’ counsel that I have ever witnessed.” Id.; see also id. ¶ 9 (discussing Mr.
`Olson’s involvement in ISDAfix Antitrust Litigation); Olson Decl., Ex. T (Mr. Olson’s firm
`profile). Mr. Olson was named a “Rising Star” in the field of competition law by legal journal
`Law360 and a “Leading Lawyer” by Legal 500 USA. Id., Exs. M-N. In 2021, he was awarded a
`Chambers rating for Antitrust: Mainly Plaintiff, where he was described as “fantastic, whip-
`smart and an incredible writer.” Id., Ex. O. Following his graduation from Harvard Law School,
`he clerked on the Northern District of California, for Judge Vaughn R. Walker, and on the
`Second Circuit, for Judge Barrington D. Parker, Jr. See id. ¶ 11. He is also counsel in the related
`De Coster action.
`Adam B. Wolfson currently serves on the Executive Committee in In re 3M Combat
`Arms Earplug Products Liability Litig., No. 19-md-2885 (N.D. Fla.), a mass tort seeking
`compensation for over 250,000 former service members injured by defective earplugs, see Olson
`Decl. ¶ 13, and has played significant roles in a number of other antitrust and class actions
`including Mackmin, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., No. 11-cv-01831 (D.D.C.), and Polyurethane Foam
`Antitrust Litig., No. 10-md-02196 (N.D. Ohio), see Olson Decl. ¶ 14 (listing cases); Olson Decl.,
`Ex. U (Mr. Wolfson’s firm profile). Mr. Wolfson has also taken class actions to final judgment,
`including recovering $5.4 billion for two classes of health insurers. See Olson Decl. ¶ 16. Mr.
`Wolfson has been named an “MVP” and a “Rising Star” in the field of class actions by Law360,
`
`MOTION TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP - 9
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`010888-11/2120173 V2
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000, SEATTLE, WA 98101
`206.623.7292 206.623.0594 FAX
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 84 Filed 01/09/23 Page 13 of 18
`
`
`
`listed among the top 500 plaintiffs’ financial lawyers in the nation by Lawdragon, and as one of
`the “key lawyers” in Quinn Emanuel’s ranked antitrust defense practice by Legal 500 USA. Id.,
`Exs. P-S. He is also counsel in the related De Coster action.
`Alicia Cobb is a partner in and heads up Quinn Emanuel’s Seattle office. Ms. Cobb
`represents plaintiffs in significant antitrust cases including the related De Coster action against
`Amazon, In re Valve Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:21-cv-044563-JCC (W.D. Wash.), The Home
`Depot v. Visa Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-5507 (E.D.N.Y), and In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge
`Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869 (D.D.C.). See Olson Decl. ¶¶ 17-19. Ms. Cobb clerked for
`Judge Edward R. Korman in the Eastern District of New York. See Olson Decl. ¶ 21; Olson
`Decl., Ex. V (Ms. Cobb’s firm profile).
`4.
`Keller Rohrback
`Keller Rohrback has three decades of experience representing plaintiffs in large-scale,
`complex cases involving corporate wrongdoing, and has recovered nearly $50 billion for its
`clients to date. Courts nationwide have appointed Keller Rohrback attorneys to leadership
`positions in many of the most competitive, newsworthy, and high-stakes cases across the
`country. Declaration of Derek Loeser in Support of Motion for Appointment of Interim Lead
`Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (“Loeser Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-4, 10. Keller Rohrback’s
`experience and ability in managing class actions has been recognized in numerous published
`opinions. See, e.g., In re WorldCom, Inc. ERISA Litig., 2004 WL 2338151, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.
`18, 2004) (“Lead Counsel [Keller Rohrback] has performed an important public service in this
`action and has done so efficiently and with integrity. It has cooperated completely and in novel
`ways with Lead Counsel for the Securities Litigation, and in doing so all of them have worked to
`reduce legal expenses and maximize recovery for class members.”).
`Derek Loeser is a senior partner at Keller Rohrback and a member of the firm’s
`Executive Committee. Mr. Loeser maintains a national practice prosecuting class actions and
`large-scale individual cases, and he frequently serves in a leadership role. He has recently been
`appointed lead or co-lead counsel in complex matters involving the Wells Fargo unauthorized
`account scandal and the MDL stemming from the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scandal,
`
`MOTION TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP - 10
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`010888-11/2120173 V2
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000, SEATTLE, WA 98101
`206.623.7292 206.623.0594 FAX
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10