Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01510/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01510-89/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

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

REGARDING CLASS NOTICE

The opt-out period for class members passed over three months ago. Despite this reality,

class counsel now informs the Court that the claims administrator failed to email notices to class

members as required under the notice plan approved on September 21, 2009 (Dkt. Nos. 235, 239,

523). Class counsel now seeks an order excusing them from the emailed notice requirement and

stating that emailed notice was not necessary to provide the “best notice practicable” under FRCP

23(c)(2). As the signed stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties demonstrates,

defendants do not oppose this request by class counsel (Dkt. No. 526).

There is no question that emailed notices, in addition to notices individually sent by firstclass mail, could have benefitted those class members whose mailing addresses were erroneous or

out of date. Nevertheless, the law is clear that individualized notice by first-class mail is

sufficient to meet the requirements of due process and the notice requirements of FRCP 23(c)(2)

Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacqueline, 417 U.S. 156, 173-77 (1974); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts,

472 U.S. 797, 812 (1985). Here, class counsel provided individual notice via first-class mail to 

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 607 Filed 04/12/10 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

all known class members (Sylvester Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4). For the small subset of mailed notices that

were returned as undeliverable (approximately 1,300 out of the 90,000-plus class members), class

counsel located new mailing addresses and resent class notices for over half of them (id. at ¶¶ 5,

6). Under Eisen, this is sufficient to meet the “best notice practicable” standard.

As such, the parties’ stipulation and order regarding class notice — filed concurrently

with this order — has been GRANTED. While class counsel’s failure to provide emailed notice

under the notice plan is excused, the Court is displeased that its order was violated and will likely

take this failure into account if and when the question of attorney’s fees and costs is presented.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 607 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 2