Lee v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company

Filing 110

ORDER RE CLASS NOTICE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/22/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
JESSICA LEE, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals,

12
13
14

No. C 11-0043 RS
ORDER RE CLASS NOTICE

Plaintiff,
v.
STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

15
16

Defendants.
____________________________________/

17
18

Plaintiff has brought a motion seeking to resolve disputes between the parties regarding the

19

form of notices to be provided to the class in this matter. In the course of briefing, the parties have

20

reached agreement on some matters, and plaintiff has incorporated some of the changes defendant

21

Stonebridge sought into new proposed forms of notice. Plaintiff has also committed to meeting and

22

conferring with Stonebridge regarding the content of the website and information to be provided

23

through the toll-free telephone number, and is hereby ordered to do so.

24

The parties continue to disagree whether it is appropriate to use the term “spam” in the

25

notices to describe the text messages at issue. Because the term “unsolicited” is easily understood

26

and less potentially prejudicial, the notices shall employ it in lieu of the term “spam.”

27

While Stonebridge may be correct that it generally is appropriate to use only the class

28

definition in banners and notice headlines, in this instance plaintiff’s proposal to reference the “$100

1

wal-mart gift cards” is justified. Although the class is defined more broadly, which may have any

2

number of legal consequences, there is no prejudice to defendants arising from plaintiff’s proposal,

3

and it is more likely to provide meaningful notice to any class members who did receive text

4

messages regarding such gift cards.

5

Stonebridge has the better argument, however, that using its name in the website domain

6

name and elsewhere to describe this litigation is inappropriate. Not only is Stonebridge not the sole

7

defendant, its name did not appear in the alleged text messages. Accordingly, some form of phrase

8

“Lee Text Message” or “Lee Unsolicited Text Message” should be used for the domain name, to

9

identify the administrator, and wherever else appropriate, in lieu of “Stonebridge Text Message” or

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

“Stonebridge Spam.”
Although the remaining changes sought by Stonebridge are in themselves not objectionable,

12

it has not shown that they represent a meaningful improvement over plaintiff’s proposal.

13

Accordingly, with the additional changes required by this order, plaintiff’s proposed forms of notice

14

are approved.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22

Dated: 5/22/13
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2