Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00038/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00038-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Negotiable Instrument

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEAN ALEXANDER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 05-cv-00038-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR CORRECTIVE NOTICE, 

AN ORDER ENJOINING UNILATERAL 

COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

SANCTIONS

Docket No. 216

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for corrective notice, an order 

enjoining unilateral communications, and sanctions. A hearing was held on Plaintiffs’ motion on 

April 22, 2016. At the hearing, the Court GRANTED in part and DENIED in part Plaintiffs’ 

request for relief. This order memorializes the Court’s rulings on the motion and provides 

additional analysis, as necessary. 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Order Enjoining Unilateral Communications

Mr. Burton (both on his behalf and on behalf of the Hersh law firm) and Plaintiffs 

stipulated on the record that he/Hersh will not initiate or invite any unilateral communications to 

the Alexander class until after the claims filing period has closed. Currently, that claims filing 

deadline is May 15, 2016, but that may be subject to change. Pursuant to that stipulation, the 

Court so orders. The Court also notes that, even absent a stipulation under a Gulf Oil analysis, this 

remedy would be appropriate for the reasons stated on the record. See generally Gulf Oil Co. v. 

Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 101 (1981) (stating that “an order limiting communications between parties 

and potential class members should be based on a clear record and specific findings that reflect a 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 229 Filed 04/25/16 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

For the Northern District of California

weighing of the need for such a limitation and the potential interference with the rights of the 

parties”).

B. Corrective Notice

The Court has authority to issue a corrective notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(d). A corrective notice is necessary because the letter sent by Mr. Burton/Hersh 

contains false and/or misleading statements. For example, the statement that Plaintiffs’ counsel 

settled meal-and-rest-break (“MRB”) claims for $0 omits the fact that, ultimately, the class was 

given monetary consideration ($5.6 million) for MRB claims that accrued after August 2011 and 

that MRB claims that accrued before August 2011 were not settled at all. Also, the statement that 

Plaintiffs’ counsel requested between $50 and $60 million in fees omits the fact that the fees 

requested covered not just the post-August 2011 MRB claims but also other wage-and-hour claims

and that the total settlement is for nearly $227 million. 

There is evidence before the Court that the Burton/Hersh letter has in fact misled or 

confused class members. To ensure that that confusion does not deter class members who have 

not yet filed claims from filing such claims, the Court shall require a corrective notice to be sent to 

certain members of the class, more specifically (1) the class members to whom Mr. Burton/Hersh 

sent the letter1and (2) the approximately 450 class members who have not yet filed claims.2 After 

the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a proposed corrective notice (Docket No. 227-1), with 

content largely consistent with the Court’s instructions at the hearing. The Court has brief 

modifications to that proposed notice and shall shortly finalize that notice to be issued to the 

above-identified class members.

Mr. Burton/Hersh shall bear the cost of the corrective notice. This includes the cost of 

drafting the corrective notice and the mailing of the corrective notice by the claim administrator. 

 

1 Mr. Burton/Hersh shall identify for Plaintiffs to whom the letter was sent. According to Mr. 

Burton/Hersh, approximately 60 of the letters were returned as undeliverable. The corrective 

notice need not, of course, be sent to these class members. However, Mr. Burton/Hersh shall 

provide proof to Plaintiffs that the letters were in fact returned as undeliverable.

2

There may be some overlap between these two categories. Even if those persons in the first 

category have already submitted claims, they shall still be sent a corrective notice as they may 

have talked to other class members about the Burton/Hersh letter that they received.

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 229 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

For the Northern District of California

This is not a sanction; rather, this simply reflects the fact that no corrective notice would need to 

be issued but for the fact that Mr. Burton/Hersh sent the letter in the first place. 

To the extent Mr. Burton and Hersh have raised an objection to the cost of notice based on 

anti-SLAPP law or the litigation privilege, the Court is not persuaded. The anti-SLAPP law is, on 

its face, clearly not applicable. See, e.g., Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(b)(1) (providing that “[a] 

cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s 

right of petition or free speech . . . in connection with a public issues shall be subject to a special 

motion to strike”) (emphasis added). Also, Gulf Oil is the proper analysis for the protection of free 

speech rights. As for the litigation privilege, it is designed to protect against a “later derivative 

tort action” (not the situation here) and actually “favor[s] sanctions within the original lawsuit.” 

People v. Persolve, LLC, 218 Cal. App. 4th 1267, 1274 (2013). 

C. Sanctions

Because the Court is ordering Mr. Burton/Hersh to pay the cost of the corrective notice, 

pursuant to its Rule 23 authority, Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is partially rendered moot. To 

the extent Plaintiffs seek an award of fees for the cost of preparing the pending motion, the request 

for relief is denied. The Court is satisfied that Mr. Burton/Hersh did not act with the intent to 

disrupt the claims filing process in this suit, given that the communication was sent after the initial 

claims period had already closed.

This order disposes of Docket No. 216.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 229 Filed 04/25/16 Page 3 of 3