Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01510/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01510-90/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases. /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER VACATING PRIOR

ORDERS RE EMAILED NOTICE,

REQUESTING RESPONSES, AND

SETTING HEARING

In light of a troubling letter received from an absent class member who suffered a

significant loss of retirement savings in the YieldPlus fund, but apparently “never received the

prescribed notice of the claim,” the prior orders excusing class counsel’s failure to email notice

to class members — filed yesterday as docket numbers 606 and 607— are VACATED without

prejudice to possible reinstatement.

Copies of this letter, dated April 6, 2010, and signed by Professor Garvey at the

University of San Francisco School of Law, were sent to Dorothy Fernandez at Morrison &

Foerster LLP, and Steve Berman at Hagens, Berman, Sobel, Shapiro LLP. Both sides are

ORDERED to address the following issues raised by this letter BY NOON ON FRIDAY,

APRIL 16, 2010:

1. Counsel shall advise whether notice was sent to Professor Garvey and if so, why he did

not receive it. 

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 609 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

2. Counsel’s response should directly address the statements attributed to Ms. Carole

Sylvester at Gilardi & Co. (the claims administrator) regarding the “problems with

notices sticking together” and being “not at all surprised to hear that an investor had not

received a notice.” A declaration on point from Ms. Sylvester is required. 

3. Counsel shall further explain why, in seeking to excuse the failure to give emailed notice

to class members, they neglected to bring these problems with the individually mailed

notices to the Court’s attention (in either the initial or supplemental declarations filed a

few days ago) as well as the contentions by the professor, at least some of which were

known evidently to counsel.

4. Counsel shall also advise as to the particulars of any other class members who claim to

have not received notice of this class action. 

5. The Schwab defendants are separately ordered to provide the Court with a list of all

pending arbitrations or claims brought individually by YieldPlus investors that Schwab

contends will be bound to any settlement or judgment in this action because they failed to

opt out.

6. Finally, counsel shall address the implications of Schwarzschild v. Tse, 69 F.3d 293, 297

(9th Cir. 1995) in light of the contentions of inadequate notice.

Counsel shall please give same-day service of their responses to Professor Garvey, who

will then be allowed to file a reply, to be served on both sides, BY NOON ON APRIL 22. A further

hearing shall be held on this matter AT 11:00 A.M. ON APRIL 29. The Clerk shall mail a copy of

this order to Professor Garvey.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 609 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 2