United States District Court, D. Nevada
KARL E. RISINGER, et al., Plaintiffs,
SOC LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER (JT. MOT. FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE &
NOTICE PLAN-ECF NO. 198)
A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the court on the parties Joint Motion for
Approval of Class Notice and Notice (ECF No. 198)
(“Joint Motion”). This Joint Motion is referred
to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.
Background and Procedural History
case involves a class action dispute over the terms of
employment for armed guards hired to work in Iraq. In
September 2015, United States District Court Judge Miranda M.
Du granted in part and denied granted in part Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment, denied Plaintiff's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment is, and granted Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Order (ECF No. 155). The
Ninth Circuit recently affirmed her decision. Sept. 1, 2017
Memorandum (ECF No. 165).
Du set the case for trial in January 2018. Defendants filed a
Motion to Continue the Trial, Joint Pretrial Order Deadline,
and to Reopen Discovery (ECF No. 182). Judge Du granted the
portion of the motion regarding the trial, vacating the
upcoming trial date. See Minute Order (ECF No. 187).
She then referred the portion of the motion seeking to extend
the joint pretrial deadline, adopt proposed schedule, and
reopen discovery is referred to me Id. A trial date
will be reset after the discovery issues are addressed.
December 21, 2017, the court held a hearing on the discovery
and scheduling issues raised in defendants' motion (ECF
No. 182). See Mins. of Proceedings (ECF No. 190).
The court heard the parties' representations, shared its
inclinations, and continued the proceedings to allow the
parties to continue their discussions. Id. On
December 29, 2017, the court held a second hearing during
which it adopted the defendants' position regarding the
two contested issues in the class notice. See Mins.
of Proceedings (ECF No. 191). The court further ruled that
notice be given by January 5, 2018 as requested by the
parties, with a 60-day opt out period. Id. The court
also addressed the remaining discovery issues and case
management schedule. Id.
January 5, 2018, the parties filed a Stipulation to Extend
Deadline for Class Notice (ECF No. 192). The court granted
this request. Order (ECF No. 197). The parties timely filed
the Joint Motion asking the court to approve notice to the
class in the form attached as exhibits to the motion.
class actions certified under Rule 23(b)(3), “the court
shall direct to the members of the class the best notice
practicable under the circumstances.” The notice must
clearly and concisely state the following:
(i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the
class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses;
(iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an
attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the court will
exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion;
(vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii)
the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Notice must be sent to
“all members who can be identified through reasonable
23(c)(2)(B) requires “the best notice that is
practicable under the circumstances.” Under this
standard, courts retain considerable discretion to tailor
notice to the relevant circumstances: “The
determination of what efforts to identify and notify are
reasonable under the circumstances of the case rests in the
discretion of the judge before whom the class action is
pending.” 3 Newberg on Class Actions § 8:2 (4th
ed. 2007) (citation omitted). “When the names and
addresses of most class members are known, notice by mail is
usually preferred.” Id.; see also
Manual for Complex Litig. § 21.311 (4th ed.
the parties propose notice to putative class members by: (1)
an official website containing long-form notice and other
litigation documents; (2) physical mail notice to mailing
addresses of known potential class members; (3) email notice
to e-mail addresses of known potential class members; (4)
social media notice advertisements targeted to Facebook users
with military and law enforcement “interests” on
the Facebook social network; (5) short form notice as
internet ads calculated to reach potential class members; and
(6) a toll-free helpline available 24-hours a day, seven days
a week to assist potential class members and allow them to
leave a message to speak with a notice administrator. The
court finds that the proposed notice clearly and ...