Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-02022/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-02022-16/pdf.json

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

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRANDON BANKS, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 11-cv-2022-PJH 

ORDER RE NOTICE PROCEDURE 

 At a case management conference held on February 18, 2016, the parties 

proposed a procedure by which notice of the amended proposed settlement would be 

sent only to class members who opted out of the original proposed settlement. The 

parties explained that such a procedure was employed in a similar case, Klee v. Nissan 

North America, Inc., 2015 WL 4538426 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015). However, because the 

parties did not cite to Klee in their case management statement, the court did not have an 

opportunity to review the case prior to the case management conference. 

 Having now reviewed Klee, the court finds significant differences between Klee 

and the present case. In Klee, the terms of the original settlement provided that owners 

of affected vehicles would receive an extension of their warranty, which would cover any 

repairs or replacements of the battery in their electric cars. Importantly, it appears that 

class members did not need to submit a claim in order to receive the extended warranty – 

but rather, the benefit would be extended to all class members unless they opted out. 

After preliminary approval was granted in Klee, notice was sent to all class 

members, and a number of objections were received. In response, the parties requested 

Case 4:11-cv-02022-PJH Document 211 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

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 

a stay of the final approval proceedings, so that they could participate in further 

mediation. As a result of that mediation, the parties reached a modified settlement 

agreement that would provide additional benefits to the class. Specifically, the modified 

settlement provided for replacement (not repair) of the vehicles’ batteries, and would also 

provide free access to charging stations where available. Notice of the modified 

settlement was sent only to class members who opted out of the first proposed 

settlement, so that they would have an opportunity to opt back in to the modified 

settlement. 

This case is a very different situation. As opposed to Klee, this is a “claims made” 

case, so only class members who submit a valid claim will receive any benefit. As a 

result, if the court were to send notice only to class members who opted out of the 

original proposed settlement, all of the class members who neither opted out nor 

submitted a claim would receive nothing. Contrast that with the situation in Klee, where 

those silent class members would still receive the benefit of the modified settlement. 

The court finds it entirely plausible, if not likely, that certain class members who 

chose not to submit a claim when the expected reimbursement was $20 would now 

choose to submit a claim when the expected reimbursement is $400. And the court sees 

no reason to deny the previously-silent class members an opportunity to submit a claim, 

now that the settlement terms have been improved. 

Accordingly, the court is inclined to require that notice be sent to (1) class 

members who opted out of the original settlement, (2) class members who objected to 

the original settlement, and (3) class members who did not respond to the original 

settlement notice. Notice need not be re-sent to class members who did submit a valid 

claim, because it is unlikely that a class member who previously submitted a claim would 

choose to opt out or object to a settlement that would confer a larger benefit. Because 

this issue has not been fully briefed, the parties will have an opportunity to explain why 

the court should follow the approach taken in Klee, despite the differences identified 

above. The parties may file a joint supplemental brief, not to exceed ten (10) pages, no 

Case 4:11-cv-02022-PJH Document 211 Filed 02/19/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

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 

late

Da

er than Feb

IT IS S

ated: Febru

bruary 29, 

SO ORDER

uary 19, 201

2016. 

RED. 

6 

3

__

PH

Un

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

__________

dge 

______ 

Case 4:11-cv-02022-PJH Document 211 Filed 02/19/16 Page 3 of 3