Nunez v. BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc.
3:16-cv-02162
| S.D. Cal. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- This is a joint submission by Class Counsel and defendant BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair, Inc. proposing supplemental notice and procedures after the Court found deficiencies in the original class notice.
- The Court’s August 2, 2017 order required supplemental notice to (1) disclose the full temporal scope of the release and (2) alert class members to Class Counsel’s attorney-fees motion so they can object.
- Parties agreed to jointly pay re-notification costs (without reducing the settlement fund) and to provide a Spanish translation.
- Parties submitted a Supplemental Notice that: clarifies the release runs through the date the Court grants final approval; notifies class members of the July 6, 2017 attorney-fees motion and how to obtain it; and limits the renewed objection period to two narrow grounds.
- The Court approved the Supplemental Notice as satisfying Rule 23(e)(1) and set procedures and deadlines, including a 45-day period from mailing for opt-outs/limited objections and a Final Fairness Hearing on November 7, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of supplemental notice under Rule 23(e)(1) | Supplemental language adequately informs class members of release scope and fee motion and gives means to review and object | Joint proposed notice satisfies Court directives and provides reasonable access to documents | Court held the supplemental notice is adequate and incorporates prior order requirements |
| Scope of released claims (temporal extent) | Class members must be informed that release runs through date of final court approval | Same: parties agreed to explicit language defining release period | Court held the notice language sufficiently apprises class members that acceptance releases claims through final approval date |
| Notice of attorney-fees motion and objection opportunity | Class Counsel’s fee motion must be made known and accessible so members can object or opt out informedly | Parties’ notice provides existence of fee motion and three methods to obtain it (courthouse, PACER, counsel) | Court held notice adequately alerts class members to fee motion and their right to object |
| Procedures and schedule for re-notification, objections, and fairness hearing | Proposed timelines (mail within 5 days, 45-day response period, supplemental brief 7 days before hearing) are reasonable | Same; parties proposed specific mail/search steps and filings | Court approved procedures but amended: Final Fairness Hearing set for Nov 7, 2017 and supplemental brief due 14 days before the hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (notice must describe settlement terms in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints)
- Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) (standards for sufficiency of class notice)
- Grunin v. Int'l House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114 (8th Cir. 1975) (mechanics of notice are left to court discretion subject to broad reasonableness/due process standards)