UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 14, 2011
ERIC STILLER AND JOSEPH MORO, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
COSTCO D/B/A/ COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge United States District Court
ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED NOTICES TO CLASSES [Doc. No. 109]
On February 10, 2011, the parties submitted a joint request for the Court to approve their proposed notices. (Doc. No. 109.) The joint request contained a proposed notice to the nationwide (FLSA) class and a proposed notice to the California (Rule 23) class. (Id. Exs. AB.)
The Court approves the notice to the nationwide (FLSA) class. However, as to the California (Rule 23) class, the Court notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) requires that for any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the required notice to the class must "clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language: . . . (iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; . . . and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3)." The Court directs the parties to confer and re-submit their joint proposed notices with the required language as to the California (Rule 23) class, or advise the Court through briefing as to why the required statements should not be included on or before February 28, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.