Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03228/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03228-41/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER L. NEWTON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN DEBT SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-11-3228 EMC

ORDER APPROVING CLASS NOTICE

(Docket No. 314)

On June 9, 2015, this Court certified a Rule 23 class in this litigation. Docket No. 313; see

Newton v. Am. Debt Servs., Inc., 2015 WL 3614197 (N.D. Cal. 2015). In its Class Certification

Order, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer “regarding the form and logistics of

distributing class notice,” and submit a proposal to the Court by June 30. Id. at *11. 

The parties filed proposed class notices on June 30, 2015, but did not include sufficient

details regarding the logistics of the proposed class notice program. Docket No. 314. The Court

ordered the parties to file a supplemental declaration containing this information, Docket No. 315,

and the parties complied on July 7, 2015. Docket No. 317. According to the parties, notice will be

sent to all class members by U.S. Mail, and email where possible (i.e., where the Defendants’

business records contain a class member’s email address). Id. Notice via U.S. Mail will be sent to

class members’ last known address using Defendants’ business records. Id. The Class

Administrator will further update the last known postal address of class members using the National

Change of Address Database. Id. If a class notice is returned as undeliverable, the Administrator

will attempt to locate the class member’s latest address by performing a “skip trace.” Id. 

Case 3:11-cv-03228-EMC Document 318 Filed 07/09/15 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 1

 See Newton, 2015 WL 3614197, at *6. 

2

In light of the easily identifiable and relatively small number of class members at issue here

(estimated by the Defendants to be roughly 385 known individuals),1 the Court is satisfied that the

proposed notice procedures are sufficient and satisfy due process requirements. See In re

Transpacific Passenger Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., No. C07-5634 CRB, 2015 WL 3396829, at *4

(N.D. Cal. May 26, 2015) (explaining that due process requires “the best notice that is practicable

under the circumstances”); see also Silber v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1994). 

The Court is also satisfied with the form of the class notice that will be sent to class members

by either U.S. Mail, email, or both. After receiving the parties’ proposed class notice, the Court

edited the notice for clarity and content. See Docket No. 316 (Order); Docket No. 316-1 (Court’s

Proposed Notice). The Court instructed the parties to file any objections or comments to its

proposed class notice by July 7. Docket No. 316. The parties did not file any objections or

comments. Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to disseminate class notice in the form

proposed by the Court. Class notice shall be disseminated no later than sixty (60) days from the date

of this Order. Notice provided by U.S. Mail shall be sent in envelopes consistent with the parties’

proposed envelope design, Docket No. 317-1 and 317-2, which design this Court approves. 

This Order disposes of Docket No. 314. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-03228-EMC Document 318 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 2