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)
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?