Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02320/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02320-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

STEPHEN WHITEWAY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX KINKOS OFFICE AND 

PRINT SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 05-2320 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 121]

Before the Court is defendant FedEx Kinkos Office and Print Services, Inc.’s (FedEx) motion

to compel the plaintiff to include a request for a notice of exclusion in the mailing of the class notice

[Docket No. 121]. After reading and considering the arguments presented by the parties, the Court finds

this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See FED. R. CIV. P. 78. For the reasons stated

below, the motion to compel is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND

On September 13, 2006, the Court ordered class certification of “current and former FedEx

Kinko’s [Center Managers] who were classified as exempt employees at any time between April 18,

2002, and the present.” Docket No. 89. On January 16, 2007, the parties stipulated to providing class

certification notice to potential members of the class by first class mail. FedEx is now requesting that

the plaintiff be compelled to include a one page request for exclusion in the class notice mailing to allow

recipients a means of opting out of the class action if they so choose. FedEx has agreed to provide the

exclusion form and a stamped self-addressed envelope at its expense. FedEx maintains that a request

for exclusion will make the class notice clearer and more concise, and will eliminate any ambiguity as

to when and how members may elect to be excluded. 

The plaintiff opposes being required to include a “request for exclusion” form with the class

notification. It is the plaintiff’s position that there is no basis for requiring such an exclusion form with

the class notice, that including it would cause confusion among class members, and it would increase

Case 4:05-cv-02320-SBA Document 157 Filed 05/08/07 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 2

the administrative costs of the notice process. 

LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) provides that

For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must direct to class members the

best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all

members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The notice must concisely

and clearly state in plain, easily understood language:

• the nature of the action,

• the definition of the class certified,

• the class claims, issues, or defenses,

• that a class member may enter an appearance through counsel if the member so

desires,

• that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion,

stating when and how members may elect to be excluded, and 

• the binding effect of a class judgment on class members under Rule 23(c)(3).

ANALYSIS

FedEx acknowledges that “Federal Rule 23(b)(3) does not explicitly require a request for

exclusion,” but argues that including makes the class notice clearer and more concise, and helps the

notice to be the “best notice practicable under the circumstances.” Docket No. 143. FedEx points to

no authority either requiring such an exclusion notice form, or any suggesting that it would make the

notice the best practicable under the circumstances. Instead, FedEx relies upon what it refers to as the

“customary and ordinary practice in class action litigation.” Counsel for FedEx declares that they are

unaware of any case amongst the hundreds they have handled where a court has refused to allow the

inclusion of a request for exclusion in any notice sent to class members. Countering this, the plaintiff

has submitted a declaration from a class action administrator who states that “Class Notices in wage and

hour class actions are not customarily sent along with a “Request for Exclusion” form.” Docket No. 134

(Hamann Decl.) (underscoring in original). 

Whatever the purported “custom” may be, the posture of FedEx’s request is in the form a motion

to compel seeking an order from the Court mandating that the plaintiff include an exclusion notice. It

is upon FedEx to demonstrate that it is entitled to the relief that it is requesting. It has not done so.

Case 4:05-cv-02320-SBA Document 157 Filed 05/08/07 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

Reviewing the Advisory Committee Notes included with Rule 23(c)(2)(B), in 2003 the

Committee referred to illustrative clear-notice forms provided by the Federal Judicial Center. See FED.

R. CIV. P. 23(c)(2)(B) advisory committee’s note. The example notice forms provided by the Federal

Judicial Center merely includes language, on the face of the notice, that a class member may decide to

be excluded from the class, and if they wish to do so, they may send a letter to a given address. See

http://www.fjc.gov/ (Class Action Notices Page). The notice forms do not appear to contemplate the

inclusion of an exclusion notice form. There is nothing preventing the inclusion of such a form. But,

given that the parties dispute including an exclusion form, and FedEx is seeking an order from the Court

requiring the plaintiff to include it, FedEx must demonstrate either that it is required or that it can

support its contention that including an exclusion form constitutes a “best practices” in this type of

litigation. They have done neither, and therefore the motion should be denied. 

 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, defendant FedEx Kinkos Office and Print Services, Inc.’s motion to compel the

plaintiff to include a request for a notice of exclusion in the mailing of the class notice [Docket No. 121]

is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 4, 2007 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02320-SBA Document 157 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 3