Bennett v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 26-cv-03129-GPG-KAS
Consolidated with Civil Action No. 26-cv-03159-GPG-KAS
Consolidated with Civil Action No. 26-cv-03160-GPG-KAS
DIANA BENNETT,
KIMAH BEACH, and
GRACE STEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHRYN A. STARNELLA
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead
Class 	Counsel 	[#11] 	and 	Plaintiffs’ Unopposed 	Motion 	to 	Stay 	Case 	Pending
Mediation [#19]. The Motions [#11, #19] have been referred to the undersigned.1 The
Court has reviewed the briefs, the case file, and the applicable law. For the reasons stated
below, the Motions [#11, #19] are GRANTED.2
1 The parties have not yet filed a signed Election Concerning Consent/Non-Consent form [#4-1].
2 “[T]he appointment of interim class counsel does not have any impact on later certification of a
class.” Sheehy v. Intermountain Health Care Inc., No. 25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP, 2026 WL 709732,
at *1 n.1 (D. Colo. Mar. 13, 2026). Accordingly, the Court proceeds by Order rather than
Recommendation. See id.; see also In re Frontier Airlines Litig., No. 20-cv-01153-PAB-KLM, 2020
WL 9258441, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 16, 2020) (Magistrate Judge proceeding by order on similar
motion).
Case No. 1:26-cv-03129-GPG-KAS Document 24 filed 10/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 6

2
I. 	Background
This consolidated action arises from data breaches that Frontier Airlines sustained
on May 12, 2026, and June 3, 2026, resulting in the names, addresses, social security
numbers, driver’s license numbers, and other personal identifying information of at least
11,482 people being compromised. Am. Compl. [#22] ¶¶ 27-30. Defendant did not notify
the putative Class of the data breach until July 9, 2026. Id. ¶ 31.
The Plaintiffs initiated three separate civil actions. Plaintiff Bennett initiated Civil
Action 26-cv-03129-GPG-KAS on July 13, 2026. Plaintiff Beach initiated Civil Action 26-
cv-03159-GPG-KAS on July 15, 2026. Plaintiff Stean initiated Civil Action 26-cv-03160-
GPG-KAS on July 15, 2026. Within a matter of days, Plaintiff Bennett filed a Motion to
Consolidate Cases [#10] in Civil Action 26-cv-03129-GPG-KAS, which District Judge
Gallagher granted on August 13, 2026. Order [#17].
Through the instant Motions [#11, #19], Plaintiffs now seek appointment of interim
class counsel and to stay this matter pending mediation.
II. 	Analysis
A. 	Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel [#11]
Plaintiffs seek an Order appointing their counsel, Laura Van Note of Cole & Van
Note, Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC, and Marc H. Edelson of Edelson Lechtzin
LLP as interim co-lead class counsel. Defendant takes no position on the Motion [#11]
and thus represents that the Motion [#11] is unopposed. Response [#16].
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3) provides that a court “may designate
interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify
the action as a class action.” Appointment of interim counsel is particularly appropriate
Case No. 1:26-cv-03129-GPG-KAS Document 24 filed 10/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 6

3
“[w]here various law firms represent members of overlapping proposed classes” and “may
be helpful in clarify[ing] responsibility for protecting the interests of the case during
precertification issues, such as making and responding to motions, conducting necessary
discovery, moving for class certification, and negotiating settlement.” In re Frontier Airlines
Litig., No. 20-cv-01153-PAB-KLM, 2020 WL 9258441, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 16, 2020)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
When appointing interim class counsel, courts look to the same factors used in
determining the adequacy of class counsel. Id. at *2. Those factors are: (1) the work
counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (2) counsel’s
experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims
asserted in the action; (3) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and (4) the
resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(g)(1)(A).
As necessary, courts may also consider “any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to
fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(g)(1)(B).
Upon review of these factors, the Court finds that appointment of Ms. Van Note,
Ms. Borrelli, and Mr. Edelson as interim co-lead class counsel is appropriate.
First, Plaintiffs represent that their counsel “have spent a significant amount of time
and effort investigating, researching, and litigating the cases,” and “are most familiar with
the legal and factual issues in question[.]” Motion [#11] at 2. This is consistent with what
other courts in this district have found sufficient to support appointment as interim class
counsel. Sheehy v. Intermountain Health Care Inc., No. 25-cv-00914-RMR-SBP, 2026 WL
709732, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 13, 2026); Gomez v. SSA Holdings, LLC, No. 25-cv-03740-
NYW-SBP, 2026 WL 83915, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 12, 2026).
Case No. 1:26-cv-03129-GPG-KAS Document 24 filed 10/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 6

4
Second, all three attorneys specialize in and have extensive experience litigating
complex class actions, including data breach cases. Motion [#11] at 2. Ms. Van Note is a
shareholder of Cole & Van Note, which has prosecuted “hundreds of class and/or
complex/representative cases,” many of which involve similar data breaches. Id. at 7;
Plfs.’ Ex. A, Cole & Van Note Firm Resume [#11-1] at 6-17. Ms. Borrelli is a founding
partner of Strauss Borrelli PLLC and leads the firm’s class action litigation practice. Motion
[#11] at 10; Plfs.’ Ex. B, Strauss Borrelli Firm Resume [#11-2] at 7-10, 16-18. Plaintiffs
identify nine other data breach cases in which Ms. Borrelli has served as lead counsel or
co-counsel. Motion [#11] at 10. Mr. Edelson is a managing partner of Edelson Lechtzin
LLP, a “national class action law firm.” Id. at 11. He has served in leadership roles in “many
MDL cases,” and Plaintiffs highlight eleven data breach cases in which Mr. Edelson has
served as lead or co-counsel. Id. at 12; Plfs.’ Ex. C, Edelson Lechtzin Firm Resume [#11-
3] at 4, 7.
In light of their experience, counsel are necessarily well-versed in class action
litigation practice and the areas of law at issue in this case. Similarly, Plaintiffs represent
that their respective attorneys “extensively researched the claims at issue before filing
their actions.” Motion [#11] at 12. Finally, counsel state that their respective firms possess
the “ability to dedicate the necessary resources to ensure a substantial and sustainable
case on behalf of the putative Class[.]” Id. at 13. In light of their deep firm resumes
identifying 	experience with class actions, 	the Court has no reason to doubt 	this
representation.
Finally, 	the 	absence 	of 	opposition 	is 	an 	additional 	pertinent 	consideration
supporting the appointment. Sheehy, 2026 WL 709732, at *3. For these reasons, the
Case No. 1:26-cv-03129-GPG-KAS Document 24 filed 10/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 6

5
Court grants the Motion [#11] and appoints Ms. Van Note, Ms. Borrelli, and Mr. Edelson
as interim co-lead class counsel.
B. 	Motion to Stay [#19]
Plaintiffs next ask the Court to stay all existing deadlines in this action while the
parties proceed to mediation. Motion [#19] at 1. Defendant does not oppose the Motion
[#19]. Plaintiffs represent that the parties have scheduled a mediation on November 13,
2026, with retired Judge David E. Jones. Id. The Court finds that a brief stay is appropriate
pending the outcome of the November mediation. Accordingly, the Court grants the
Motion [#19].
III. 	Conclusion
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#11] is GRANTED. Laura Van Note of
Cole & Van Note, Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC, and Marc H. Edelson of
Edelson Lechtzin LLP are APPOINTED as interim co-lead class counsel in this matter
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion [#19] is GRANTED. The case is
STAYED pending further order of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for October 14,
2026, in this matter is hereby VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if the mediation is successful, the parties shall
file a Notice of Settlement or dismissal papers no later than November 23, 2026. If the
mediation is not successful, the parties shall file a joint motion to set a Scheduling
Case No. 1:26-cv-03129-GPG-KAS Document 24 filed 10/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 6

6
Conference no later than November 23, 2026, and shall include in such motion several
mutually agreeable dates that the parties are available.
Dated: October 13, 2026 	BY THE COURT:
Kathryn A. Starnella
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-03129-GPG-KAS Document 24 filed 10/13/26 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 6