YSLA et al v. USA

Filing 71

UNREPORTED ORDER granting 66 Motion ; on 66 Joint MOTION to Approve Notice to Prospective Class Members filed by JULIA M. MULDROW, GLORIY ADI ECHEVARRIA, HENRIETTA HARGRESS DAVIS, DANUTA YSLA, ARLENE FRANCES HOBBS, TIERRA KELLY. Signed by Senior Judge Victor J. Wolski. (km) Service on parties made.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 18-1292C
(Filed March 7, 2025)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
DANUTA YSLA,
*
HENRIETTA HARGRESS DAVIS, *
GLORIYADI ECHEVARRIA,
*
ARLENE FRANCES HOBBS,
*
TIERRA L. KELLY,
*
JULIA M. MULDROW,
*
on behalf of themselves and
*
all others similarly situated,
*
*
Plaintiffs,
*
*
v.
*
*
THE UNITED STATES,
*
*
Defendant.
*
*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ORDER
Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Approve Notice to Prospective Class
Members (Joint Mot.), ECF No. 66, brought under Rule 23 of the Rules of the
United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The Joint Motion included the
parties’ proposed plan for providing notice to prospective class members and the
proposed procedure for distributing the notice, as well as proposed language for the
proposed notice, the proposed abbreviated postcard notice, and the proposed opt-in
form. See Joint Mot. at 2, 4, Ex. 1, Ex. 2, Ex. 3. After review, the Court identified
various sections of the proposed notice and postcard notice where edits were needed
to create the “best notice that is practicable under the circumstances.” RCFC
23(c)(2)(B). Following a status conference held on February 20, 2025, in which the

parties and the Court discussed proposed changes, the parties submitted a Joint
Status Report, ECF No. 69, including a revised proposed notice, revised proposed
postcard notice, and revised opt-in form. See Ex. 1, Ex. 2, Ex. 3. Upon further
review, the Court suggested two edits to the revised notice (Joint Status Report
Ex. 1), namely: (1) in the last line of page 5 of the proposed notice, the words “to
present” should be added following “August 23, 2012”; and (2) the language “unless
you choose to retain your own attorney” should be added to the end of the last
sentence of point 16 on page 8 of the proposed notice. The parties concurred in
these edits.
Under RCFC 23(c)(2)(B), the court “must direct to class members the best
notice that is practicable under the circumstances” that “clearly and concisely
state[s]” in easily understood language:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

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 an attorney if
the member so desires;
(v)
that the court will include in the class any member who requests
inclusion;
(vi) the time and manner for requesting inclusion;
(vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under RCFC
23(c)(3); and
(viii) that the court may permit withdrawal from the class of a member who
initially requested inclusion.

RCFC 23(c)(2)(B). The notice shall be provided through “United States mail,
electronic means, or other appropriate means.” Id.
The parties proposed a plan for providing notice to prospective plaintiffs
through “both digital and U.S. mail communications.” Joint Mot. at 2. A Class
Administrator will create and maintain a dedicated website for the class which
shall display the notice and provide instructions for opting-in to the class, will mail
the postcard notice to the prospective class members, and will create and maintain
a helpline for prospective class members. See Joint Mot. at 3. As this Court
approved a similar notice procedure in Quimby v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 126
(2012), the Court finds this procedure is likely to produce the best notice
practicable, satisfying RCFC 23(c)(2)(B).
As discussed above, the parties provided language for the proposed notice to
prospective class members that will be posted on the website, the proposed
abbreviated postcard notice that will be mailed to the prospective class members,
and the opt-in form to be used by prospective class members to join the class. Joint
Mot. at Ex. 1, Ex. 2, Ex. 3. While the Court found the opt-in form met the
-2-

requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B), it identified several aspects of the proposed notice
and proposed postcard notice that failed to satisfy Rule 23(c)(2)(B). After discussion
with the Court, the parties amended and filed revised documents. See Joint Status
Report, ECF No. 69. Following initial amendment by the parties, the Court
suggested additional minor modifications to provide consistency and clarity to the
prospective class members. The parties agreed to the suggestions. By
implementing the various amendments, the parties created language much like
that approved by this Court in Quimby. † With the amendments and pursuant to
Rule 23(c)(2)(B) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, the
Court is now satisfied that the documents represent “the best notice that is
practicable under the circumstances” and meet the specific requirements of
subsections (i) through (vii). RCFC 23(c)(2)(B).
For the reasons stated above, this Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to
Approve Notice to Prospective Class Members, as amended. The official notice and
postcard notice are hereby approved for mailing and posting to potential class
members. In accordance with the December 19, 2024 Order, ECF No. 63, adopting
the schedule proposed by the parties in the joint status report of that same day, see
ECF No. 62, the Court requests that the parties file a status report informing the
Court of the date the notices are mailed and the resulting deadlines.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Victor J. Wolski
VICTOR J. WOLSKI
Senior Judge

See Status Report, ECF No. 122, and Status Report Order, ECF No. 123, Quimby
v. United States, No. 02-101C.
†

-3-