Miletak et al v. Allstate Insurance Company

Filing 254

ORDER APPROVING PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED CLASS NOTICEre 252 Notice (Other) filed by Vlaho Miletak, 253 Notice (Other) filed by Allstate Insurance Company. Signed by Judge James Ware on May 3, 2010. (jwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vlaho Miletak, et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 06-03778 JW ORDER APPROVING PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Allstate Insurance Company, et al., Defendants. /

Presently before the Court are Proposed Class Notices filed separately by the parties.1 On April 7, 2010, the Court issued an order approving Defendants' Proposed Class Notification Plan and directing the parties to submit a Joint Class Notice on or before April 19, 2010.2 In particular, the Court reserved decision on the proposed class notices in order to give Plaintiffs time to review Defendants' edits, which the Court found to comport with the exemplar class certification notice. (April 7, 2010 Order at 3.) On April 19, 2010, the parties notified the Court that they again failed to come to complete agreement as to the form of the Proposed Class Notice. (See Plaintiffs' Notice at 1; Defendants' Notice at 1.) However, the Court finds that the differences in the current proposals are minimal.

(Plaintiffs' Revised Proposed Class Notice, hereafter, "Plaintiffs' Notice," Docket Item No. 252; Defendants Allstate Insurance Company's and Allstate Indemnity Company's Submission of Proposed Class Notice, hereafter, "Defendants' Notice," Docket Item No. 253.) (Order Approving Defendants' Proposed Class Notification Plan; Reserving Decision on Proposed Class Notice; Setting Deadline for Submission of Joint Proposed Class Notice, hereafter, "April 7, 2010 Order," Docket Item No. 251.)
2

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' Proposed Class Notice now comports with the Court's previous Order. Insofar as the Defendants object to the association of Mr. Mark Millen with Class Counsel, the Court rejects Defendants' objection. The Court finds that Mr. Millen has been an attorney in the case since the filing of the initial Complaint. (See Notice of Removal, Ex. B, Docket Item No. 1.) The Court further finds that Defendants' characterization of Plaintiffs' request as an attempt to identify Mr. Millen as Class Counsel is without merit. Plaintiffs' Proposed Class Notice clearly indicates that Mr. Samuel Kornhauser is Class Counsel and that Mr. Millen's role is that of an associated attorney. (See Plaintiffs' Notice, Ex. 1 at 5.) Further, Defendants do not identify any prejudice that they would suffer as a result of Class Counsel associating with another attorney. Accordingly, the Court hereby APPROVES Plaintiffs' Proposed Class Notice. The parties shall direct notice to class members as required in the Court's April 7, 2010 Order.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: May 3, 2010

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Bonnie Lau [e-mail] Gayle M. Athanacio [e-mail] Hillary Noll Kalay [e-mail] Mark Paul Millen [e-mail] Samuel Kornhauser [e-mail] Sanford Kingsley [e-mail]

Dated: May 3, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28