Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02446/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02446-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILIP WONG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION (USA),

et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-07-2446 MMC

ORDER RE: FORM OF NOTICE TO

PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS;

DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS

By order filed March 19, 2008, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for conditional

certification of a class of loan officers employed by defendants. In said order, the Court

directed the parties to meet and confer as to the form of the notice to be provided to the

putative class members, and to submit either a jointly-proposed form of notice or, to the

extent a dispute as to the form of notice existed, separately proposed forms of notice.

Before the Court is the parties’ joint letter, filed April 11, 2008, to which are attached

the parties’ respective proposed forms of notice. In the joint letter, the parties identify two

disputes.

First, the parties disagree as to whether the notice should be printed on pleading

paper and bear the caption of the case. The Court finds, for the reasons stated by

defendants, the notice should not be printed in such format, but, rather, should be printed in

the format submitted by defendants. See Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S.

Case 3:07-cv-02446-MMC Document 113 Filed 04/21/08 Page 1 of 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

1

Indeed, of the twelve approved notices submitted to the Court by plaintiffs as

examples of approved forms of notice, only one was signed by a district judge; nine were

signed by counsel for the plaintiff(s) therein, and two appear to be lacking the signature

page. (See Pl.’s Mot. for Conditional Certification, Ex. 13, filed December 21, 2007.)

2

165, 174 (1989) (holding “trial courts must take care to avoid even the appearance of

judicial endorsement of the merits of the action”); Prentice v. Fund for Public Interest

Research, Inc., 2007 WL 2729187 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (holding where “caption would appear

at the top of the [n]otice,” it would “give the wrong impression almost immediately”); see

also Woods v. New York Life Ins. Co., 686 F. 2d 578, 581 (7th Cir. 1982) (holding it is

“improper for the district court to direct that the notice go out on its own letterhead”).

Second, the parties disagree as to the proper language to be used in the first

paragraph of the “Conclusion” section. Plaintiffs suggest using the phrase, “This notice and

its content has been authorized [by the Court],”, while defendants suggest using the

phrase, “Attorneys for plaintiffs have been permitted to send this notice [by the Court].” 

Although both statements are factually correct, the Court finds, for the reasons stated by

defendant, that the language suggested by defendant is more appropriate. See Sperling v.

Hoffman-La Roche Inc., 862 F. 2d 439, 447 (3rd Cir. 1988) (“Ordinarily, the better practice

would be to exclude any reference in the notice indicating it had been approved or

authorized by the court.”), aff’d, 493 U.S. 165 (1989).

Finally, although each party’s proposed notice includes a line for the Court’s

signature, the Court finds the notice should not be signed by the Court, but, rather, by

counsel for plaintiffs. See Woods, 686 F. 2d at 581-82 (holding notice should not be sent

“over the judge’s or clerk’s signature”; vacating order approving notice where notice was to

be signed by clerk of court); see also Hoffmann-LaRoche, 493 U.S. at 169-70 (1989)

(holding district court has power to “prescrib[e] the terms and conditions of communication

from the named plaintiffs to the potential members of the class on whose behalf the

collective action has been brought”) (emphasis added).1

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-02446-MMC Document 113 Filed 04/21/08 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, plaintiffs are hereby DIRECTED to submit for final court approval a form

of notice in conformity with the above rulings, as well as the proposed “Plaintiff Consent

Form and Declaration” plaintiffs seek to attach thereto; such documents shall be submitted

no later than April 30, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02446-MMC Document 113 Filed 04/21/08 Page 3 of 3