Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03778/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03778-16/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

 (Plaintiffs’ Revised Proposed Class Notice, hereafter, “Plaintiffs’ Notice,” Docket Item

No. 252; Defendants Allstate Insurance Company’s and Allstate Indemnity Company’s Submission

of Proposed Class Notice, hereafter, “Defendants’ Notice,” Docket Item No. 253.)

2

 (Order Approving Defendants’ Proposed Class Notification Plan; Reserving Decision on

Proposed Class Notice; Setting Deadline for Submission of Joint Proposed Class Notice, hereafter,

“April 7, 2010 Order,” Docket Item No. 251.)

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 PLAINTIFFS’

PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE

Presently before the Court are Proposed Class Notices filed separately by the parties.1 On

April 7, 2010, the Court issued an order approving Defendants’ Proposed Class Notification Plan

and directing the parties to submit a Joint Class Notice on or before April 19, 2010.2

 In particular,

the Court reserved decision on the proposed class notices in order to give Plaintiffs time to review

Defendants’ edits, which the Court found to comport with the exemplar class certification notice. 

(April 7, 2010 Order at 3.) 

On April 19, 2010, the parties notified the Court that they again failed to come to complete

agreement as to the form of the Proposed Class Notice. (See Plaintiffs’ Notice at 1; Defendants’

Notice at 1.) However, the Court finds that the differences in the current proposals are minimal. 

Case 5:06-cv-03778-JW Document 254 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 3
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

Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Proposed Class Notice now comports with the Court’s

previous Order.

Insofar as the Defendants object to the association of Mr. Mark Millen with Class Counsel,

the Court rejects Defendants’ objection. The Court finds that Mr. Millen has been an attorney in the

case since the filing of the initial Complaint. (See Notice of Removal, Ex. B, Docket Item No. 1.) 

The Court further finds that Defendants’ characterization of Plaintiffs’ request as an attempt to

identify Mr. Millen as Class Counsel is without merit. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Class Notice clearly

indicates that Mr. Samuel Kornhauser is Class Counsel and that Mr. Millen’s role is that of an

associated attorney. (See Plaintiffs’ Notice, Ex. 1 at 5.) Further, Defendants do not identify any

prejudice that they would suffer as a result of Class Counsel associating with another attorney.

Accordingly, the Court hereby APPROVES Plaintiffs’ Proposed Class Notice. The parties

shall direct notice to class members as required in the Court’s April 7, 2010 Order.

Dated: May 3, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03778-JW Document 254 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 3
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: May 3, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:06-cv-03778-JW Document 254 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 3