Class Action and MDL
One team, prepared for scale, from certification through resolution.
Overview
One Team, for the Length of the Docket
Class action and multi-district litigation (MDL) practice is its own specialized discipline within civil litigation. Class actions allow representative plaintiffs to litigate claims on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (and parallel state rules), with class certification a critical procedural milestone that often shapes settlement leverage and trial prospects. MDL practice consolidates federal civil actions sharing common factual issues before a single judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings, typically through Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Both class actions and MDL matters involve scale, complex procedural mechanics, and specialized issues around class notice, settlement structure, common benefit allocations, and appellate practice that differ materially from standard civil litigation.
Holdsworth & Inkwell represents both class plaintiffs and class defendants in class action and MDL matters, with the same conflict procedures that govern the firm's other dual-side practices. Plaintiff-side work spans wildfire mass torts and class actions, commercial class actions on behalf of class plaintiffs, MDL plaintiff steering committee work and common benefit assignments, settlement class negotiation, and Rule 23(f) appellate practice. Defense-side work spans defense of putative securities class actions, consumer protection class actions in technology and manufacturing matters, commercial class action defense, MDL pretrial coordination on behalf of defendants, bellwether trial preparation, and settlement negotiation. The firm's class action practice spans commercial, consumer protection, securities, employment, and mass tort class actions, with parallel MDL work across the firm's substantive practice areas.
When You Need This
When This Capability Becomes Relevant
Class action and MDL work surfaces at specific procedural moments, not as a general practice area a company either needs or doesn't. Recognizing which moment you're in points toward what happens next, whether the matter has you defending a class or pursuing one. The situations below mark where this capability turns from theoretical to practical for your matter.
A Putative Class Action Has Been Filed Against You
When a putative class action is filed against the company, the early procedural decisions shape both the immediate response and the trajectory of the case. The firm represents class defendants in motion to dismiss practice, opposition to class certification, discovery defense in putative class actions, settlement evaluation and negotiation, and (where applicable) MDL transfer practice and coordination with related cases. Strategic early decisions about which issues to challenge and which to defer often determine the case's settlement value.
You Have Grounds for a Class Action
When facts develop suggesting that a class action would be the appropriate procedural vehicle (claims that affect many similarly situated persons, common questions of law and fact, defendants whose conduct caused widespread harm), the firm assesses the strength of the class action theory, the availability of the procedural mechanisms (Rule 23 federal class actions, state class action procedures, mass tort consolidation alternatives), and the strategic considerations including class definition, class certification prospects, and likely defenses.
MDL Transfer Proceedings Are Pending
When related federal cases are pending in multiple districts and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is considering transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the firm represents plaintiffs or defendants in the JPML proceedings, addresses the case's preferred transferee forum, and prepares for participation in the consolidated MDL pretrial proceedings if transfer is ordered. The MDL framework has its own procedural mechanics that affect discovery, motion practice, trial selection, and settlement structure.
Class Certification Motion Practice
Class certification under Rule 23 (and parallel state rules) is the critical procedural milestone in class action litigation. The firm represents both moving and opposing parties in class certification motion practice, including Rule 23(a) and 23(b) analyses, expert witness practice on certification issues, class definition refinements, and the strategic decisions about timing of certification motion practice relative to merits discovery and motion practice.
Settlement Class or Class Settlement Negotiation
Class settlements (including settlement classes under Rule 23(b)(3) or 23(e)) involve specialized procedural and substantive considerations including settlement class certification, class notice mechanics, opt-out procedures, fairness hearing preparation, attorney's fee applications, and objector challenges. The firm represents class plaintiffs and class defendants in class settlement negotiation, court approval proceedings, and the post-settlement implementation work.
Rule 23(f) or Class Action Appellate Work
Rule 23(f) allows interlocutory appeal of class certification rulings on a discretionary basis, with petitions for permission to appeal subject to specific deadlines and substantive standards. Class action settlement approval, objector appeals, and other class action appellate work involves specialized appellate considerations. The firm represents clients in Rule 23(f) practice, class action settlement appeals, and other class action appellate proceedings, often in coordination with the firm's appellate practice.
Our Approach
One Method, Every Phase
Class action and multi-district litigation matters move through years of procedural phases, each with its own stakes and its own way to lose momentum without warning. What follows is how the firm carries a matter through that arc, on either side of the docket, from the attorney who opens it to the one who closes it out.
Initial Strategy and Procedural Posture
Class action and MDL engagements begin with strategic assessment of the procedural posture. For plaintiffs, the firm assesses the viability of the class theory, the appropriate forum and procedural vehicle (federal class action, state class action, MDL consolidation, mass tort consolidation alternatives), the class definition, and the likely defenses. For defendants, the firm assesses the strength of defenses to class allegations, motion practice opportunities, MDL transfer considerations, and the strategic options for early resolution or vigorous defense.
Pleadings and Early Motion Practice
Early motion practice often shapes the class action's trajectory. The firm engages in motion to dismiss practice (for defendants), motion to strike class allegations (for defendants), motion for class certification (for plaintiffs in some procedural postures), motion practice on choice of law and forum questions, and the related procedural motions that establish the framework for the case. For MDL matters, this phase includes participation in JPML transfer proceedings if not yet completed.
Discovery and Class Certification Preparation
Discovery in class action and MDL matters typically proceeds in phases, with class certification discovery preceding merits discovery in many cases. The firm conducts (or defends) discovery on class certification issues including commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, and predominance, with parallel merits discovery as appropriate to the procedural schedule. MDL discovery typically involves coordinated practice across all consolidated cases under the supervision of the MDL judge.
Class Certification Motion Practice
Class certification is the procedural milestone that often determines settlement leverage and trial prospects. The firm represents moving and opposing parties in class certification motion practice, including drafting motion and opposition papers, expert witness preparation and challenges on certification issues, oral argument, and post-decision motion practice. For matters where Rule 23(f) interlocutory appeal is available, the firm coordinates with appellate practice on the petition strategy.
Settlement or Trial Preparation
Following class certification (or denial), the case proceeds to settlement negotiation or trial preparation. Settlement class work involves negotiating substantive settlement terms, class certification for settlement purposes, notice mechanics, opt-out procedures, and fairness hearing preparation. Trial preparation in class actions and MDL bellwether trials involves the specialized challenges of presenting class-wide evidence and the integration of common and individual issues. Both paths require coordinated work across the substantive case and the class action procedural framework.
Settlement Administration or Appellate Practice
After class settlement approval, settlement administration includes class notice implementation, opt-out and objector handling, claims administration, attorney's fee applications, and the eventual close-out of the settlement. After trial, post-verdict and appellate work follows similar paths to non-class litigation but with the class action procedural overlay. Objector appeals, attorney's fee appeals, and class certification appeals are common appellate work in class action matters.
Fee Structure
Class Action and MDL Fees
Class action and MDL fees track the side of the matter and the underlying case structure. Plaintiff-side class action and MDL work is most commonly billed on contingency, with the firm advancing case costs and recovering them from any class settlement or judgment. Defense-side class action work is most commonly billed hourly, with budget projections for the major procedural phases (motion to dismiss, class certification, settlement negotiation, trial preparation).
For plaintiff-side wildfire mass torts and class actions, qui tam-related class proceedings, and similar plaintiff-side matters where the firm's substantive plaintiff-side practice areas drive the work, contingency arrangements are typical with the specific terms set out in engagement letters. For defense-side matters, hybrid arrangements (capped fees through specific procedural milestones, with hourly billing for work beyond the cap) are sometimes appropriate to provide cost predictability while accommodating the inherent uncertainty of class action timing.
Attorneys
Prepared From Filing to Resolution
The attorneys below take on class action and MDL matters at Holdsworth & Inkwell. Each one stays with a matter from its earliest procedural assessment through certification, settlement, or trial, building the record before it's needed and carrying the work through to its close.
Harvey Specter
Managing Partner
Jessica Pearson
Office Managing Partner, Atlanta
Vincent Gambini
Office Managing Partner, Austin
Marcus Cicero
Office Managing Partner, Denver
Diane Lockhart
Senior Counsel
Sandy Stern
Senior Counsel
Annalise Keating
Of Counsel
Patty Hewes
Partner; Chair, Wildfire Litigation Practice
Louis Litt
Partner; Chair, eDiscovery Litigation and Data Management Practice
Howard Hamlin
Partner
Alicia Florrick
Partner
Mickey Haller
Partner
Mike Ross
Senior Associate
Kim Wexler
Senior Associate
Lucca Quinn
Senior Associate
Cary Agos
Senior Associate
Rachel Zane
Associate
Maggie McPherson
Associate
Practice Areas
Where This Work Applies
Class action and MDL work is a procedural capability rather than a practice area in its own right. It shows up inside the substantive matters below, where the mechanics of certification, coordination, and settlement have to move in step with the underlying law. The practice areas here are where this capability is put to work most often, carried by the same team from the procedural questions through to resolution.
Practice Area
Commercial Litigation
Trial-tested representation for businesses navigating contract disputes, business torts, and competitive harm.
Practice Area
Wildfire Litigation
Recovery for property owners, businesses, and insurance carriers in wildfire matters involving utility negligence and federal lands.
Practice Area
Insurance Recovery
Recovery for businesses and policyholders facing denied claims, coverage disputes, and bad-faith conduct by insurance carriers.
Practice Area
False Claims Act Litigation
Whistleblower representation in qui tam actions exposing healthcare fraud, procurement fraud, and grant fraud against the government.
Practice Area
eDiscovery
Strategic management of electronically stored information in complex litigation, including preservation, review, and production.
Sectors
By Industry
Each sector below reflects where this practice most often engages, whatever their number. The list follows matters the firm has handled, not a claim to universal reach.
Sector
Healthcare and Life Sciences
Complex litigation representation for hospital systems, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, and life sciences clients.
Sector
Energy and Utilities
Litigation for utilities, energy services companies, and oil and gas operators across commercial, insurance, and regulatory disputes.
Sector
Financial Services
Litigation for banks, mortgage servicers, investment funds, and private equity sponsors across securities and fiduciary disputes.
Sector
Technology
Litigation for technology companies in commercial disputes, cross-border discovery, and electronic-evidence-intensive matters.
Sector
Manufacturing
Litigation for industrial manufacturers in supply chain disputes, trade secret matters, and product recall coverage.
Sector
Real Estate and Hospitality
Litigation representation for real estate developers, hotels and hospitality operators, restaurant groups, and commercial property owners.
Sector
Government Contractors
Litigation for federal and state contractors in False Claims Act matters, contract disputes, and parallel administrative proceedings.
Experience
The Work, on the Record
The matters below show where this capability has actually been used: class certification fights, MDL coordination, settlement structure, and the appellate work that follows a certification ruling either way. Each was carried by the same attorneys from filing through resolution, indexed and prepared as though every fact would eventually be tested. They represent how the firm approaches this kind of matter, not a preview of how the next one will go.
Resolved Subrogation Claims in Northern California Wildfire MDL
settlement2026CaliforniaResolved Washington Wildfire Subrogation Under Pure Comparative Framework
settlement2025WashingtonCoordinated Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Recovery Under FEMA Framework
regulatory-approval2025New MexicoResolved Wildfire Subrogation Claims in Multi-Carrier Dispute
settlement2025Colorado
Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. Every engagement is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances.
Resources
Class Action and MDL Insights
Class certification and MDL coordination reward preparation long before the first motion is filed. The analysis below reflects how we work through these matters, from certification strategy to settlement administration, informed by representing both plaintiffs and defendants in this practice.
Breaking the Mass-Arbitration Fee Trap: Defense Tactics After Wallrich, Frazier, and the AAA Rule Overhauls
Mass arbitration weaponizes up-front fees to coerce settlement. A defense framework for drafting, structuring, and litigating against coercive bulk filings after recent appellate wins.
Hyperlinked Files, Cloud Collaboration, and the New Geometry of Preservation Obligations
Are hyperlinked cloud documents "attachments"? A defense framework for the proportionality, versioning, and preservation questions modern attachments now raise.
The End of California's Inverse Condemnation Era? Defending Utilities Through the SB 254 Reform Window
California's strict-liability inverse condemnation doctrine is under legislative scrutiny after the SB 254 reports. How utility defendants should position cases during the reform window.
Publications
Analysis That Keeps Pace
Class action and MDL matters move through distinct phases, certification, coordination, settlement, appeal, and each phase raises questions worth tracking as they develop. The series below follow this work as it unfolds, adding to the record issue by issue rather than closing the file after a single piece. They reflect the same habit that shapes the matters themselves: preparation that continues past the moment it's needed.
Publication
State Procedural Updates
Cross-jurisdictional analysis of procedural and substantive framework developments across the states in which the firm practices.
Publication
False Claims Act Updates
Federal and state False Claims Act developments, including qui tam practice, public disclosure bar doctrine, and pleading specificity.
Publication
Wildfire Litigation Updates
Wildfire-related litigation, federal compensation framework developments, and utility wildfire defense across the Western United States.
FAQ
Class Action and MDL Questions
Class actions and multidistrict litigation move on their own procedural clock, with vocabulary and mechanics that differ from a standard civil matter. The questions below address what people considering this work most often want to understand before a first conversation. Each answer is scoped to this practice, not the firm's broader work.
The firm represents defendants in class action litigation, multidistrict litigation (MDL), and coordinated multi-party defense matters. Class action defense work includes opposition to class certification, defense of certified classes through trial and appellate work, and resolution of multi-state class action exposure through coordinated settlements. MDL experience includes wildfire subrogation MDL matters in Northern California, FCA actions consolidated across jurisdictions, and coordinated defense of multi-claimant proceedings such as the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon fire recovery under the FEMA framework. The firm represents defendants in matters with significant collective exposure and supports clients in evaluating consolidation strategy across related actions.
The firm has substantial experience in wildfire MDL and multi-claimant fire recovery proceedings. Recent work includes resolving subrogation claims in the Northern California wildfire MDL and coordinating Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon fire recovery under the FEMA framework established by the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act. Wildfire MDL defense involves coordination with multiple insurance carriers, aligned utility defendants, government claimants, and individual property owners across jurisdictions. The firm's wildfire litigation practice provides direct support for the substantive defense, while the firm's experience with multi-party coordination supports clients through procedural, scheduling, and settlement aspects of these complex proceedings.
Class action and MDL defense frequently requires coordination across multiple jurisdictions with different procedural rules and substantive law. The firm's twenty-one-jurisdiction licensure footprint provides direct admission in many of the venues where related class actions are filed, supporting coordinated defense through a single matter team rather than separate office-by-office representation. The firm has resolved multi-state FCA actions through government-intervened settlements, coordinated multi-jurisdictional wildfire subrogation defense, and handled coordinated defense work across state and federal proceedings. Multi-jurisdictional coordination work includes joint defense agreements, common-interest privilege management, and unified discovery coordination across related actions.
The information on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.
Why Choose Us
Built for Scale, Built for the Long Haul
Certification fights, coordinated discovery, settlement administration years out: class and MDL work rewards a firm that plans further ahead than the docket requires. Here is what stands behind the approach outlined above.
Both Sides of the Table
Most firms pick a lane and stay in it. We litigate from both sides of complex civil disputes, defending corporate and institutional clients in some matters and pursuing recovery for policyholders, relators, and property owners in others. That range is a working advantage, not a hedge. A firm that only ever defends learns one half of the board; a firm that argues both sides learns how the opposing party builds its case, prices its risk, and decides when to move. When we assess your exposure, we read it the way the other side will, because in other matters, we are the other side. Explore our @practice areas@/practice-areas@ to see where that perspective runs deepest.
Trial-Tested, Not Settlement-Default
Many firms treat trial as a failure of negotiation. We treat readiness for trial as the foundation of every strong defense. A matter that is genuinely prepared to be tried is a matter negotiated from strength, because the other side knows the threat is real. Our litigators build each case as though it will be decided by a jury, which sharpens the strategy whether the resolution ultimately comes at trial, in mediation, or on a dispositive motion. That discipline informs how we staff, how we develop the record, and how we advise you on the choices that matter. Learn how we approach @trial advocacy@/services/trial-advocacy@.
One Firm, Four Offices, One Standard
From our principal office in Sacramento to our teams in Atlanta, Denver, and Austin, Holdsworth & Inkwell operates as a single firm rather than a loose confederation of branches. A client in one region draws on the full bench of the firm, not just the attorneys nearest to them. That structure lets us assemble the right team for a matter regardless of where it sits, and it means our standards for preparation, communication, and judgment travel with the work. See our @office locations@/locations@ and the regions we serve.
Continuity from Intake to Appeal
Description: Litigation that changes hands loses memory. We build matter teams that carry a case from the first assessment through trial and, where necessary, into the appellate courts, so the strategy that shapes early decisions is the same strategy that defends them later. Our @appellate practice@/services/appellate-practice@ works alongside trial teams from the outset, framing and preserving the issues that matter before they are needed, rather than arriving after a verdict to reconstruct what was lost. That continuity protects the coherence of your defense across the full life of a dispute.
Industry-Specific Bench Strength
A defense is only as strong as its grasp of the client's world. Our attorneys bring sustained experience in the sectors where our clients operate, from energy and utilities to healthcare, financial services, government contracting, and manufacturing. That familiarity means we spend less time learning your industry on your dollar and more time applying judgment shaped by matters like yours. Browse the @industries we serve@/sectors@ to see where our experience aligns with your business.
Transparent Scoping and Staffing
Sophisticated clients deserve to know how a matter is staffed, how it is budgeted, and why. We scope engagements deliberately, communicate the reasoning behind our staffing, and keep you informed as a matter develops rather than presenting surprises at billing time. The result is a working relationship built on clarity, where you can plan around our work because you understand it. That transparency is not a courtesy we extend; it is how we think a serious defense should be run.
Depth in the Hard Cases
Some disputes are routine. The ones that bring clients to us usually are not. We have built genuine depth in the areas where the stakes and the complexity are highest, including False Claims Act and qui tam litigation, insurance coverage and recovery, catastrophic wildfire litigation, and large-scale electronic discovery. These are matters that reward sustained focus and punish improvisation, and they are where a firm built for hard problems earns its keep. Read our @insights@/resources@ for how we think about the problems at the edge of our practice.
Counsel, Not Just Litigators
The best outcome is often the dispute that never escalates. Alongside our courtroom work, we counsel clients before litigation begins, helping them assess exposure, preserve their position, and make informed decisions when a problem first surfaces. Our @pre-litigation counseling@/services/pre-litigation-counseling@ brings the same defensive judgment to the choices that precede a filing as we bring to the courtroom, because the value of a defense firm is measured as much by the disputes it helps you avoid as the ones it wins.
Start the conversation
Talk to Someone Who Has Carried This Kind of Matter Before
You have what you need to decide. Reach out and we will pick up from there.