Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00943/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00943-78/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

HERBERT ANTHONY ADDERLEY, on

behalf of himself and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE

PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, a Virginia

corporation, and NATIONAL FOOTBALL

LEAGUE PLAYERS INCORPORATED

d/b/a PLAYERS INC., a Virginia

corporation

Defendants. /

No. C 07-00943 WHA

CLASS ACTION

QUESTIONS TO COUNSEL

REGARDING MOTION FOR

FINAL DISTRIBUTION OF

SETTLEMENT FUNDS

The undersigned has reviewed class counsel’s motion and supporting declarations seeking

approval of the second and final distribution from the settlement fund (Dkt. Nos. 692–94). Before

deciding the motion, however, the Court would like counsel to answer the following questions, in

declaration form, BY NOON ON MONDAY, JULY 12, 2010:

1. The class list submitted at trial included 2,074 retired NFL players (TX 2054). 

Twelve of these class members submitted timely opt-out requests. This means that 2,062 class

members should have been mailed a claim form (Dkt. 482). Counsel shall please explain: (i) of

these 2,062 class members, how many were included in the first mailing of claim forms and (ii)

how many were included in the second mailing of claim forms? 

Case 3:07-cv-00943-WHA Document 697 Filed 07/06/10 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 shall list the names of any class members (excluding those who timely

opted out) who were not included in either the first or second round of mailings. If any class

members fit this description, counsel shall explain why they were never mailed a claim form.

3. The declarations submitted in support of the instant motion refer to 2,059 class

members rather than 2,062 class members (see, e.g., LeClair Decl. ¶ 5). Counsel must explain

this discrepancy. If there are any errors (such as duplicate entries) in the list of 2,062 class

members, this must be brought to the Court’s attention and explained in detail by counsel.

4. Counsel have indicated that the addresses used for the first mailing of claim forms

were obtained from the United States Postal Service’s National Change of Address database. 

Counsel further explained that 261 of these claim forms were nevertheless returned as

“undeliverable.” Counsel (or the claims administrator) shall please describe in greater detail the

“additional searches” that were performed to locate new addresses for the 261 class members

whose claim forms were returned as “undeliverable.”

5. In this connection, of the 261 class members whose claim forms were returned as

“undeliverable” after the first round of mailings, how many were mailed a second claim form? Of

these second mailings, how many were again returned as “undeliverable”?

* * *

As these questions illustrate, the undersigned is most concerned about whether a large

number of class members never received a claim form (either because no mailing address could

be found or because the forms were all returned as “undeliverable”) and whether these individuals

comprise a significant portion of the 259 class members who never filed a claim.

Dated: July 6, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00943-WHA Document 697 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 2