Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Jan. 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Qeana Alfred v. Federal Express Corporation

District Court, W.D. Washington

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2:25-cv-01769

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

7

QEANA ALFRED, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-1769-JNW

8

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING INTERIM CLASS

9 COUNSEL

v.

10

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,

11

Defendant.

12

13

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Qeana Alfred’s unopposed
14

motion for appointment of interim class counsel in this putative class action against
15

Defendant Federal Express Corporation. Having considered the motion, supporting
16

declaration, and the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS the motion.
17

District courts “may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative
18

class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. 19

P. 23 (g)(3). While the civil rules do not prescribe a standard for the appointment of
20

interim counsel, courts in this district typically rely on the same factors considered
21

when appointing class counsel: “(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or
22

investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel’s experience in handling
23

1 class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the
2 action; (iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that

3 counsel will commit to representing the class[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(i)-(iv); see
4 Pecznick v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-00743-TL, 2022 WL 4483123, at *4–5
5 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 27, 2022) (considering factors set forth at Rule 23(g)(1)(A) for the
6 appointment of interim class counsel); Ekin v. Amazon Servs., LLC, No. C14-0244-
7 JCC, 2014 WL 12028588, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 28, 2014) (same).

8 Having considered these factors, the Court finds that Emery Reddy is well

9 suited to serve as interim class counsel. Emery Reddy possesses substantial
10 experience and knowledge in class action litigation, including in cases involving the
11 same statutory claims at issue here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(ii), (iii); see also,
12 Dkt. No. 21 at 5–6. The firm has also demonstrated that it will commit considerable
13 time and resources to litigating the putative class’s claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
14 23(g)(1)(A)(iv); see also, Dkt. No. 21 at 7.

15 Emery Reddy represents that its attorneys have already “devoted a

16 substantial amount of time and effort” into this matter by “reviewing publicly
17 available information about Defendant and its practices and interviewing Plaintiff.”
18 Dkt. No. 22 ¶ 3. The firm filed this action in July 2025, and it remains the only
19 pending lawsuit against Defendant for alleged violations of RCW 49.62.070. Id. ¶ 4.
20 Plaintiff urges early appointment of interim class counsel based on the risk of
21 copycat actions that could complicate the litigation, pointing to another pending

22 case against Defendant where counsel may seek to add similar claims. See Dkt. No.
23 21 at 3–4; Dkt. No. 22 ¶ 4. While early appointment can be appropriate when there
1 are a number of lawyers who have filed related “copycat” actions, see Manual for

9 Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.11; see also, Tolmasoff v. Gen. Motors, LLC, No.

3 16-11747, 2016 WL 3548219 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2016), no such actions have

4 materialized here. The Court does not rely on this speculative concern as a basis for

5, |/its decision.

G Even so, the Court concludes that appointment is warranted. The designation
7 of interim counsel clarifies responsibility for protecting the putative class’s interests

8 during precertification litigation and promotes efficient case management. Given

9 Emery Reddy’s demonstrated experience in this area of law, its track record in

10 similar litigation, and the absence of any opposition, the Court finds appointment
11 appropriate in the exercise of its discretion.

12 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Alfred’s motion to appoint Emery Reddy as

13 || interim class counsel.

14 Dated this 20th day of January, 2026.

16 Jamal N. Whitehead
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23