BOSTON (Legal Newsline) – A plaintiff’s death won’t be a springboard for class action lawyers to solicit new clients – unless a judge decides it is.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court made that ruling on March 28 in a class action against Secure Home Health Care Incorporated. Raven Moeslinger’s quest to find a new plaintiff after Charles Kingara passed made it all the way to the state’s highest court and drew attention from the Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association, which submitted an amicus brief.
Kingara was a licensed practical nurse for Secure Home and filed a five-count wages and hours class action in September 2019. He died about a year later, before a class was certified.
Moeslinger wanted to send notice to putative class members that Kingara had died and inviting them to join the lawsuit. He also wanted the defendant to identify those putative class members.
“A client’s death terminates an attorney’s authority to act on behalf of that client,” Justice David Lowy wrote. “However, it is unclear whether a similar representative relationship exists between would-be class counsel and putative class members such that counsel would have an obligation and concomitant authority to act on behalf of those putative class members prior to certification.”
Granting Moeslinger’s request would allow him “to utilize the courts as an instrument of client solicitation,” Lowy added.
But the trial judge can step in. He or she should be able to order notice to the putative class members if they would otherwise face significant prejudice, the court ruled, answering two questions reported by a justice of the state Appeals Court.
The case is remanded for the trial justice to determine if a new plaintiff needs to be found in order to protect the putative class from significant prejudice.