Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01510/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01510-130/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

ORDER DENYING THE UNION

MISSION’S REQUEST TO OPT

OUT AFTER THE DEADLINE

This order addresses The Union Mission’s renewed request to opt out of the certified class

after the deadline for requesting exclusion from the class has expired. The Union Mission 

previously filed a motion seeking permission to opt out late (Dkt. No. 476). The motion was

denied in an order dated April 9, 2010 (Dkt. No. 601). In that order, the Court explained that the

opt-out deadline for this class action was December 28, 2009, but The Union Mission made its

request to opt out on February 22, 2010, almost two months after the deadline had already passed

(Dkt. No. 601 at 1). The circumstances behind this untimely request, and the reasons why a

finding of excusable neglect was not warranted, was set forth in detail in the April 9 order.

Despite this ruling, counsel for The Union Mission appeared at the hearing on class notice

held on April 26, 2010. Counsel stated very clearly at the hearing that “this is not a due process

issue” and that The Union Mission “d[oes]n’t deny that [it] received notice through the mail. 

This is not a question of whether they received actual notice” (Dkt. No. 723 at 27). Rather,

counsel argued that because the claims administrator did not follow the notice plan providing for

emailed noticed, and that The Union Mission supposedly would have received notice and opted

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 822 Filed 05/27/10 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

out before the deadline had such emailed notice been given, it should be allowed to opt out late as

“a matter of fairness” (ibid.). 

While the Court understands counsel’s argument, it does not warrant reconsideration of

the prior order. The analysis set forth in the prior order did not hinge upon whether The Union

Mission received emailed notice. Rather, it focused on the actual mailed notice that had been

delivered in October 2009 to the authorized agent of The Union Mission, and whether the

circumstances underlying the untimely opt-out request supported a finding of excusable neglect

(see Dkt. No. 592 at 3–6). The April 9 order concluded that excusable neglect had not been

shown. In sum, whether an email was or was not sent to The Union Mission, it does not affect the

outcome of the excusable neglect analysis.

For these reasons, the ruling set forth in the April 9 order will remain undisturbed and The

Union Mission’s renewed request to opt out late is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 822 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 2