CAMPBELL et al v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 144

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS granting in part and denying in part 136 Motion for Approval of Proposed Notice Plan and 140 Motion for Oral Argument/Hearing By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BERNHARD LOEF, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
) Docket No. 2:08-cv-311-GZS
)
)
)
)

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
Before the Court are two briefed motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of
Proposed Class Notice (Docket # 136) and (2) Defendant’s Motion for Oral Argument (Docket #
140). As explained herein, the Motions are hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
Although Defendant has objected to Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Proposed Class
Notice, Defendant’s Response makes clear that Defendant actually agrees with Plaintiff’s
proposed forms of notice. (See Def. Response (Docket # 138) at 1.) Thus, having reviewed the
proposed forms and noting no objection to the content of the forms, the Court hereby approves
the proposed forms. (See Ex. A (Docket # 136-1) and Ex. B (Docket # 136-2).) The core
disagreement between the parties surrounds how to compile a list of individuals who will receive
mailed notice. In short, the parties disagree as to “who can be identified through reasonable
effort” and what role each side must play in that “reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).
In the Court’s initial assessment of the papers, including the correspondence exchanged between
counsel, it appears the parties would benefit from in-person mediation on this issue.

1 

On a related note, Plaintiff has filed his Proposed Litigation Schedule for Merits Phase of
Litigation (Docket # 137). Defendant has filed its own Proposed Class Notice, Discovery and
Motion Plan (Docket # 138-1). Plaintiff has attempted to crystalize the key differences between
these two plans in Appendix One of Plaintiff’s Reply, titled “Side by Side Comparison of
Parties’ Respective Class Notice Plans” and “Side By Side Comparison of Parties’ Respective
Litigation Scheduling Proposals.” (See Docket # 142-1 at 11-12.)
In the Court’s view, there is significant overlap in the scheduling order disagreements and
the issues related to the mailed notice list.

An in-person conference and court-facilitated

mediation of these issues will likely aid in the overall efficient disposition of this action.
Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS that this case be set for conference and mediation before
Magistrate Judge Rich in order to discuss: (1) any issues surrounding what steps each side will
take to compile a list of potential class members who will receive individual notice, (2) the
contents of the merits-phase scheduling order, and (3) any other issues that Magistrate Judge
Rich deems appropriate after his review of this matter.
If no agreement is reached as to when and how the parties will compile a proposed list of
class members to receive mailed notice, Magistrate Judge Rich shall set a schedule for the parties
to file renewed briefing on any remaining issues. The Court fully anticipates that Magistrate
Judge Rich will issue an appropriate scheduling order to govern the merits stage of these
proceedings following his conference with the parties.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 7th day of June, 2011.
2