Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00555/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00555-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

NO. C 08-0555 RS

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED PLAN AND FORM OF CLASS NOTICE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 08/24/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MICHELLE T. WAHL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE 

CO., et al., 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C 08-0555 RS 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED PLAN AND FORM OF 

CLASS NOTICE 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On May 10, 2010, this Court entered an order granting class certification. The Court 

delineated the class, and instructed the parties to agree upon a form of class notice. The parties have 

exchanged numerous proposals, and have substantially agreed on the substance of a “long form” 

class notice. The parties disagree, however, as to whether plaintiffs should disseminate that class 

notice by sending potential class members a postcard directing them to a website that contains all of 

the information of the long form, or by directly mailing the long form notice itself. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Once a class has been certified under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), “the court must 

direct to all class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. 

Case 5:08-cv-00555-RS Document 152 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 3
2 

NO. C 08-0555 RS

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED PLAN AND FORM OF CLASS NOTICE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

Pro. 23(c)(2)(B). The notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood 

language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, 

issues, or defenses; (iv) the option for a class member to enter an appearance through an attorney if 

the member so desires; (v) a representation that the court will exclude from the class any member 

who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding 

effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3). Id. 

Adequate notice is essential to protecting the due process rights of class action litigants. 

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315 (1950). See also Eisen v. Carlisle 

& Jacqueline, 417 U.S. 156, 174, 176 (1974) (discussing the importance of due process in class 

action lawsuits). The purpose of notice is to “present a fair recital of the subject matter of the suit 

and to inform all class members of their opportunity to be heard.” In re Gypsum Antitrust Cases, 

565 F.2d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 1977). The notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested 

parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to opt out. Mullane, 399 U.S. 

at 314. 

III. DISCUSSION 

While the Ninth Circuit has not held that Rule 23 prohibits using a postcard for the purpose 

of class notification, it seems that where the Court has endorsed postcards is primarily in the context 

of notice of a class action settlement. See e.g., Acosta v. Trans Union, LLC, 243 F.R.D. 377, 383 

(C.D. Cal. 2007) (endorsing postcard mailing to class members to announce details of the 

settlement); In re M.L. Stern Overtime Lit., No. 07-CV-0118, 2009 WL 995864, at *6-7 (S.D. Cal. 

Apr. 13, 2009) (sending reminder postcards to class members who have not returned a claim form 

for settlement purposes); Perez v. Asurion Corp., 501 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1377 (S.D. Fla. 2007) 

(using one postcard to announce notice of class certification and of a class settlement). The 

defendant asserts that the distinction between initial notification and settlement is meaningful. They 

point to a recent case where a district court was presented with a plan for class notice similar to 

plaintiff’s proposal in this case. Larson v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 07-5325, 2009 WL 1228443, at 

*10 n.12 (D.N.J. Apr. 30, 2009). That court held that it is “inappropriate to circumvent the 

substantive requirements of notice by directing class members to a website link.” Id. Additionally, 

Case 5:08-cv-00555-RS Document 152 Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 3
3 

NO. C 08-0555 RS

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED PLAN AND FORM OF CLASS NOTICE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

the substance of plaintiff’s postcard, as currently presented, would not satisfy the specific 

requirements of Rule 23, as it does not adequately describe the nature of the class action and ASIC’s 

defenses. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(i), (iii). Even if it were possible to remedy the 

deficiencies of the postcard and include the relevant information pursuant to Rule 23, this might 

diminish the alleged benefits of the postcard because the print would most likely be illegible. 

 In contrast, the “long form” notice complies with the substantive requirements of Rule 23, 

and is therefore the “best notice that is practical under the circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 

23(c)(2)(B). In addition to expanding upon the information in the postcard, the long form contains a 

thorough description of ASIC’s defenses, and clearly explains what it means to be part of a class 

action lawsuit. Plaintiff has not advanced a compelling reason as to why the best notice available 

should not be issued. In light of the due process concerns associated with class notification, the 

parties are ordered to send the long form notice, not the postcard, to all potential class members. 

The attached long form notice, representing a combination of the proposals, is adapted by the Court 

and will be used to provide notice to all potential class members. A copy of the notice in Word 

format will be emailed to the parties. Additionally, plaintiff may still proceed with her plan to 

institute a website for managing and providing supplemental information about this lawsuit. The 

parties should also make available a Spanish translation of the long form. 

A Further Case Management Conference shall be held on October 21, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in 

Courtroom 3 on the 17th floor of the United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San 

Francisco, California. The parties shall submit a Joint Case Management Statement at least one 

week prior to the Conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 08/24/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:08-cv-00555-RS Document 152 Filed 08/24/10 Page 3 of 3