Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03778/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03778-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Breach of Contract- Insurance

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 (Defendants’ Proposals in Response to Court’s March 5, 2010 Order Granting Plaintiffs’

Class Certification Motion, hereafter, “Defendants’ Proposal,” Docket Item No. 249; Plaintiffs’

Proposed Class Notice and Plan for Notification, hereafter, “Plaintiffs’ Proposal,” Docket Item No.

250.)

2

 (Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Class Certification, hereafter, “March 5, 2010 Order,” Docket Item No. 246.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Vlaho Miletak, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Allstate Insurance Company, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 06-03778 JW 

ORDER APPROVING DEFENDANTS’

PROPOSED CLASS NOTIFICATION

PLAN; RESERVING DECISION ON

PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE; SETTING

DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF JOINT

PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE

Presently before the Court are Proposed Forms of Class Notice and Proposed Plans for

Notification filed separately by the parties.1 On March 5, 2010, the Court issued an order certifying

the class and directing the parties to file a proposed form of class notice and a joint proposal for

dissemination of notice.2 The parties seek the Court’s approval on the form of the proposed class

notice and ask the Court to determine how the notice should be sent.

A. Plan for Class Notification

At issue is whether Plaintiffs can shift the cost of sending notice to Defendants by requiring

that Defendants include the class notification in a client’s insurance policy renewal bill.

Case 5:06-cv-03778-JW Document 251 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

 The class notices would be included in the envelope containing each class member’s

current renewal bill on a “rolling” basis beginning May 15, 2010 and continuing through November

14, 2010. 

4

 For the proposition that courts have required defendants to enclose notices with their own

mailings, the Supreme Court in Oppenheimer noted Gates v. Dalton, 67 F.R.D. 621 (E.D.N.Y.

1975), and Ste. Marie v. Eastern R.R. Ass’n, 72 F.R.D. 443 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). In Gates, the court

found that the defendants “appear[ed] to already be in regular communication” with the class

members. 67 F.R.D. at 633 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Ste. Marie, the courtfound that the

defendants could send notices with the pay envelopes of its employees. 72 F.R.D. at 450 n.2. Both

cases are distinguishable from the situation here, where renewal notices are only sent out every six

months. 

2

Plaintiffs contend the class notices should be sent in a three-tiered system. First, Plaintiffs’

counsel, or an e-mail service, would e-mail the class action notice to those members of the class for

whom current e-mail addresses are available. (Plaintiffs’ Proposal at 1-2.) Second, Plaintiffs would

print notices that Defendants would mail to each individual class member along with the normal

insurance policy renewal bill.3

 (Id. at 2.) Third, to the extent a class member is no longer a current

customer of Defendants, class counsel would mail notice to those class members. (Id.)

Defendants contend that the “best notice practicable,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(c)(2), is a direct mailing by Plaintiffs to all class members with Plaintiffs bearing the

cost. (Defendants’ Proposal at 7.) Defendants contend that the proposal for a “rolling notice” would

be cumbersome, imprecise, and present unnecessary and unduly burdensome administration issues. 

(Id. at 5.)

A class action plaintiff is normally expected to bear the cost of notice to the class. Eisen v.

Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178-79 (1974). The Supreme Court has recognized, however,

that “in some instances, . . . the defendant may be able to perform a necessary task with less

difficulty or expense than could the representative plaintiff.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders,

437 U.S. 340, 356 n.22 (1978).4 However, in Oppenheimer, the Supreme Court “caution[ed] that

courts must not stray too far from the principle underlying Eisen that the representative plaintiff

should bear all costs relating to the sending of notice because it is he who seeks to maintain the suit

as a class action.” 437 U.S. at 359.

Case 5:06-cv-03778-JW Document 251 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

 The Court finds that Defendants cannot perform the task of notifying the class with less

difficulty or expense than Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ proposal would require Defendants to monitor

individual mailing procedures for a unique subset of its California clients across a variable time

frame. In addition, the rolling notice plan would require an added administrative burden of

monitoring individualized opt-out dates for a significant number of the class members. Further, the

Court finds that Defendants’ renewal bills, sent on a rolling bases over a period of six months, are

not the type of regular communication which would warrant a finding that Defendants are more apt

to identify and provide notice to the class. Thus, the Court finds that the best notice practicable is a

direct mailing by Plaintiffs to all class members, with Plaintiffs bearing the cost.

B. Proposed Notice

The parties represent that they have not been able to agree on the form of class notice. 

(Plaintiffs’ Proposal at 1; Defendants’ Proposal at 2.) Defendants contend that edits to Plaintiffs’

proposed notice were necessary to conform with the March 5, 2010 Order and the Federal Judicial

Center’s exemplar class certification notice. (Defendants’ Proposal at 2.)

The Court finds that Defendants’ edits regarding the class definition are consistent with the

March 5, 2010 Order. In addition, the Court finds that Defendants’ edits are consistent with the

exemplar class certification notice cited by Defendants. However, in order to provide Plaintiffs an

opportunity to review Defendants’ edits, and to provide the parties with additional time to come to

agreement on the proposed class notice, the Court reserves its decision as to the proposed class

notice at this time. 

Accordingly, the Court APPROVES Defendants’ Proposed Class Notification Plan and

reserves decision on the Proposed Class Notice. Plaintiffs shall review Defendants’ Proposed

Notice and the parties shall submit a Joint Proposed Class Notice on or before April 19, 2010.

Dated: April 7, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03778-JW Document 251 Filed 04/07/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Bonnie Lau blau@sonnenschein.com

Gayle M. Athanacio gathanacio@sonnenschein.com

Hillary Noll Kalay hkalay@sonnenschein.com

Mark Paul Millen MPMillen@aol.com

Samuel Kornhauser skornhauser@earthlink.net

Sanford Kingsley skingsley@sonnenschein.com

Dated: April 7, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:06-cv-03778-JW Document 251 Filed 04/07/10 Page 4 of 4