Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 35 Filed 10/17/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 956
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`IN RE: APPLE INC. SMARTPHONE
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`This Document Relates To: All Actions
`
`Civil Action No. 2:24-md-03113
`
`MDL 3113
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NEALS, District Judge:
`
`This matter comes before the Court upon the following four groups of motions for the
`
`appointment of interim co-lead counsel in this Multi-District Litigation: (1) Steve W. Berman of
`
`Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP (“Hagens Berman”), Dena Sharp of Girard Sharp LLP
`
`(“Girard Sharp”), Christopher A. Seeger of Seeger Weiss, LLP (“Seeger Weiss”), and James E.
`
`Cecchi of Carella Bryne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, P.C. (“Carella Bryne”; collectively with Hagens
`
`Berman, Girard Sharp, and Seeger Weiss, “DIP Group 1”) on behalf of direct iPhone purchasers
`
`(ECF No. 17); (2) Hausfeld LLP (“Hausfeld”) and Susman Godfrey LLP (“Susman Godfrey”;
`
`collectively with Hausfeld, “DIP Group 2”) on behalf of direct iPhone purchasers (ECF No. 19);
`
`(3) Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP (“Schneider Wallace”), Berger Montague PC
`
`(“Berger Montague”), Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“Lockridge Grindal”), and Spector
`
`Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. (“Spector Roseman”; collectively, with Schneider Wallace, Berger
`
`Montague, and Lockridge Grindal, “IIP Group”) on behalf of indirect iPhone purchasers (ECF No.
`
`18); and (4) Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. (“Kellogg, Hansen”), Korein
`
`Tillery LLC (“Korein Tillery”), and MoloLamken LLP (“MoloLamken”) (“DAWP Group”) on
`
`behalf of direct Apple Watch purchasers. (ECF No. 20).
`
`For the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW Document 35 Filed 10/17/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 957
`
`IT IS on this 17th day of October, 2024,
`
`ORDERED that the DAWP Group’s motion to appoint Kellogg, Hansen, Korein Tillery,
`
`and MoloLamken as co-lead interim counsel for the putative Direct Apple Watch Purchaser
`
`Plaintiff Class and McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP as liaison counsel (ECF No.
`
`20) is GRANTED; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that the IIP Group’s motion to appoint Schneider Wallace, Berger Montague,
`
`Lockridge Grindal, and Spector Roseman as co-lead interim counsel for the putative Indirect
`
`iPhone Purchaser Plaintiff Class and Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn & Sinins, P.C. as liaison
`
`counsel (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED, but the Court RESERVES decision on the request for
`
`appointment of an executive committee until after supplementary briefing is submitted and
`
`reviewed by the Court; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that the Court RESERVES its decision on the DIP Group 1 and DIP Group
`
`2’s competing motions for appointment as co-lead interim counsel for the putative Direct iPhone
`
`Purchaser Plaintiff Class (ECF Nos. 17, 19) until after supplementary briefing is submitted and
`
`reviewed by the Court; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that, in accordance with the accompanying Opinion, the IIP Group, the DIP
`
`Group 1, and the DIP Group 2 shall file their supplementary briefings, which shall be no longer
`
`than ten double-spaced pages, by no later than Thursday, October 31, 2024, and it is further
`
`ORDERED that upon reviewing the Groups’ supplementary briefings, the Court will
`
`determine whether oral argument is necessary to address any outstanding issues pertaining to the
`
`leadership applications.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/
`JULIEN XAVIER NEALS
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket