Daniel et al v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 142

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/10/2017 ORDERING #138 that plaintiff's Motion for approval of class notice and notice plan be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 13 14 MARGIE DANIEL, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, 17 18 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE AND NOTICE PLAN Plaintiff, 15 16 CIV. NO. 2:11-2890 WBS EFB v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, 19 Defendant. 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Plaintiff Margie Daniel brought this class action 22 23 against defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), alleging that Ford 24 sold her and other customers vehicles that were built with 25 defective rear suspensions. 26 granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification on September 27 23, 2016. 28 certified in this action is presently defined as: “[I]ndividuals (Compl. (Docket No. 42).) (Sept. 23, 2016 Order (Docket No. 123).) 1 The court The class 1 who (1) purchased or leased any new 2005 through 2011 Ford Focus 2 vehicle in California, (2) currently own such a vehicle, and (3) 3 currently reside in the United States.” 4 (Docket No. 131).) (Nov. 1, 2016 Order 5 Having been granted class certification, plaintiff now 6 moves for approval of her proposed class notice and notice plan. 7 (Pl.’s Mot. (Docket No. 138).) 8 Motion. Defendant supports plaintiff’s (Id. at 3.) 9 Where the court certifies a class under Rule 23(b)(3), 10 as it did here, it “must direct to class members the best notice 11 that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual 12 notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable 13 effort.” 14 “reasonably calculated . . . to apprise interested parties of the 15 pendency of the action,” actual notice is not required. 16 v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). 17 Rule 23(c)(2) governs both the form and content of a proposed 18 notice. 19 1997) (citing Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 172–77 20 (1974)). 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Although notice must be Silber See Ravens v. Iftikar, 174 F.R.D. 651, 658 (N.D. Cal. Plaintiff’s proposed notice plan entails “[m]ailing 22 individual, postcard notice . . . to the members of the Class for 23 which current mailing addresses are available.” 24 4.) 25 reviewing “data provided by Ford” and “DMV information . . . 26 collected and held by . . . IHS Markit,” a third-party data 27 collector that has agreed to release DMV information to plaintiff 28 upon court order. (Pl.’s Mot. at Plaintiff will obtain members’ mailing addresses by (Joint Status Report at 2 (Docket No. 141); 2 1 Pl.’s Mot. at 6.) 2 provided by their claims administrator, that the combination of 3 information provided by Ford and IHS Markit “will yield contact 4 information for very close to 100% of Class Members.” 5 Status Report at 2.) 6 The parties represent, based on an estimate (Joint In light of the parties’ representation that 7 “individual mailing should indeed reach very close to 100% of 8 Class Members,” (id.), the court is satisfied that plaintiff’s 9 notice plan is “reasonably calculated . . . to apprise interested 10 parties of the pendency of [this] action” and is “the best notice 11 that is practicable under the circumstances.” 12 With respect to the content of plaintiff’s proposed 13 notice, Rule 23(c)(2)(B) requires that the notice “clearly and 14 concisely state” the following: “(i) the nature of the action; 15 (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class 16 claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter 17 an appearance through an attorney if the class member so desires; 18 (v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who 19 requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting 20 exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of class judgment on 21 members.” 22 must be neutral and must avoid endorsing the merits of the 23 claim[s].” 24 LKK/G, 2010 WL 4054109, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2010). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Additionally, “notice Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., No. CIV. S-10-0059 25 Plaintiff’s postcard notice provides a brief 26 explanation of the nature of this action, the definition of the 27 class, and instructions for remaining in or opting out of the 28 class. (See Joint Status Report Ex. A, Revised Postcard Notice.) 3 1 It directs class members to “a website specifically designated 2 for this case” on which a “long-form notice” containing more 3 detailed information about this case can be viewed. 4 members may also call a toll-free number and request that the 5 long-form notice be mailed to them. 6 (Id.) Class (Id.) The long-form notice states: (1) the nature of this 7 action, (Pl.’s Mot. Ex. B, Long-Form Notice ¶ 3 (Docket No. 138- 8 1)); (2) the class certified, (id. ¶ 1); (3) the claims, issues, 9 and defenses in this action, (id. ¶ 3); (4) that class members 10 may appear through an attorney, (id. ¶ 6); (5) that class members 11 may request exclusion, (id. ¶ 5); (6) how to request exclusion, 12 (id.); and (7) the binding effect of remaining in the class, (id. 13 ¶ 1). 14 with respect to the parties’ positions and the current posture of 15 this case. 16 plaintiff’s postcard and long-form notices satisfy the 17 requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B). Both the long-form notice and postcard notice are neutral 18 Accordingly, the court finds that the content of Because plaintiff’s proposed notice and notice plan 19 satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B), the court will 20 grant plaintiff’s Motion. 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for 22 approval of class notice and notice plan be, and the same hereby 23 is, GRANTED as follows: 24 (1) The proposed notice plan described in plaintiff’s 25 Motion (Docket No. 138) and clarified in the parties’ 26 February 8, 2017 Joint Status Report (Docket No. 141) 27 is hereby approved. 28 (2) The proposed postcard notice attached to the parties’ 4 1 February 8, 2017 Joint Status Report (Docket No. 141 2 Ex. A) and the proposed long-form notice attached to 3 plaintiff’s Motion (Docket No. 138-1 Ex. B) are hereby 4 approved. 5 (3) The parties are hereby authorized and directed to 6 obtain class members’ contact information from IHS 7 Markit and its subsidiary, R.L. Polk & Co. 8 Dated: February 10, 2017 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?