Opinion
CIVIL NO. 06-1645 (JP).
February 28, 2011
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico's ("Colegio") motions for a hearing and for an extension of time for class members to opt-out ( Nos. 359 and 365), and Class Plaintiffs' opposition thereto (No. 369). There is no need for a hearing and, for the reasons stated herein, said motions are hereby DENIED.
Also before the Court is Attorney Francisco Colón-Ramírez's motion ( No. 338) submitting payment of the amount owed to Governor Luis Fortuño. Said motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court SHALL issue a check to the order of Francisco Colón-Ramírez in the amount he deposited with the Court.
I. Introduction
On July 23, 2010, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion (No. 161) in this case. In the opinion, the First Circuit directed this Court to provide class members with notice of their right to opt-out and stated that said process "ought to be done promptly." Brown v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 613 F.3d 44, 51 (1st Cir. 2010). Class Plaintiffs submitted their first draft of the proposed Notice of Class Action on September 2, 2010 (No. 168). In the process of determining the final contents of the Class Action Notice and the means by which said information would be distributed, the Court held three separate hearings and conferences (Nos. 251, 278, and 283). Colegio had the opportunity to request changes and present objections, and, in fact, did so. Many of these were considered favorably by the Court.After carefully considering and ruling on all the objections and proposed changes by the parties, the Class Action Notice was issued on January 26, 2011. The Court granted class members until February 26, 2011, to postmark their opt-outs and specified said deadline in the Class Action Notice. At that time, there was no disagreement about the reasonableness of the deadline.
Colegio filed the instant motions on February 18 and February 22, 2011, respectively, requesting an extension of time for class members to opt-out in light of allegedly unforeseen developments. Specifically, Colegio relies on the fact that: (1) 1,268 of the 13,445 Class Action Notices mailed by Rust Consulting were returned as undeliverable; (2) some class members passed away after the relevant class period and their heirs allegedly lack sufficient information on how to exclude the deceased class members; (3) many class members who allegedly wish to opt-out have an outdated record with Colegio because of death, because of recent changes of address, or because they are no longer part of Colegio; and (4) confusion has allegedly been created among class members who worked, during the relevant time period, for the non-profit legal organizations who filed motions to intervene in this case. Class Plaintiffs' oppose the request.
II. Undeliverable Class Action Notices
Colegio argues that the opt-out period should be extended because 1,268 of the 13,445 Class Action Notices mailed by Rust Consulting, around 9.5%, were returned as undeliverable.Said argument fails. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c), the Court must direct the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances. However, Rule 23 does not require that each and every class member receive actual notice. See generally, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 317-18 (1950);see also, Carlough v. Amchem Products, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 314, 325 (E.D.Pa. 1993).
In the instant case, the fact that around 9.5% of the Class Action Notices have been returned as undeliverable is not unexpected and does not warrant extending the opt-out deadline. In fact, larger percentages of undeliverable notices have resulted in notice procedures being approved. See Grunin v. International House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 121-22 (8th Cir. 1975) (approving notice procedure where 33% of class members not reached by mailing); Trist v. First Federal Savings Loan Association of Chester, 89 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.C.Pa. 1980) (approving notice when approximately 12.5% of notices were returned as undeliverable).
Colegio has failed to explain why 9.5% of class members have not received the notice or why this is unexpected or surprising.
Further, because of the fact that it was expected that not all individual notices would reach class members, the Court ensured that the Class Action Notice and the information on it was disseminated through other means. The Class Action Notice in this case is available on this Court's website (www.prd.uscourts.gov/), on Colegio's website (www.capr.org), and on an informational website (www.colegiolitigation.com). Also, a toll-free number, 1-866-329-4703, has been set up with information for the benefit of class members. All of this information is available in English and Spanish as requested by Colegio. The Court has also offered Colegio the opportunity to have the Class Action Notice published in a newspaper but, as far as the Court is aware, it has not happened (No. 237).
In fact, Colegio itself, during the process of developing the final Class Action Notice, suggested that information relating to this case be made available to class members through other means in addition to the individual notices (No. 219, p. 2).
The Court also provided Colegio with an opportunity to issue a Court-approved communication through email and/or publication in a newspaper (Nos. 384 and 398). See the full-page Communication to Class Members published in EL NUEVO DÍA, a newspaper of general circulation, edition of February 24, 2011, p. 25, attached as Appendix I.
In addition, the issues surrounding the opt-outs have been heavily covered in the media, especially during the opt-out period. Numerous articles have been published in the major newspapers of Puerto Rico. There has also been a massive campaign sponsored by individuals encouraging class members to opt-out through a website, (http://www.yonosoydeesaclase.com/), "robo-calls," and newspapers. The instructions for opting out have even been entered in the United States Congressional Record by Congressman Luis V. Gutiérrez, representing Illinois' Fourth District. The Court finds that, at this point, it is highly unlikely that any class member has not received notice or heard about the opt-out procedures in this case.
The information on the website and its creator is attached to this Order as Appendix II.
The "robo-call" campaign has extended to the point where even court employees have received the "robo-calls" on their office phone numbers, encouraging them to opt-out of the class and informing them that if they want more information, they should call 787-277-0670 and 787-374-8348. Also, class members are referred to the website http://www.yonosoydeesaclase.com/.
Attached to this Order as Appendix III is one advertisement placed in EL NUEVO DÍA on February 25, 2011, p. 54.
The video is available at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJhmoV01xQI.
Colegio also relies on the language in the Class Action Notice stating that the address to be placed on the opt-outs to be mailed to the administrator should match the address to which the notice was mailed. As Colegio is well aware, the purpose of said instruction is to benefit class members who wish to opt-out and Colegio because it facilitates the process of identifying class members for the administrator. The Court has no interest in keeping class members in the class who have made the informed decision of opting-out by mailing their opt-out to the administrator, after having the neutral Class Action Notice made available to them.
The Court has informed counsel that it will make equitable decisions regarding the accounting of opt-outs that strictly fail on unimportant technical requirements.
III. Passing Away of Class Members
Colegio argues that the opt-out period should be extended because it was unforeseen that class members would pass away. The suggestion that it was unforeseen that some class members had passed away from 2006 until the current date is ludicrous. Nothing further need be said about the matter.Also, there is no reason to conclude that the heirs of the deceased class members lack sufficient information to opt-out if they wish to do so. If they wish to not receive the damages they are entitled to, they can follow the instructions in the Class Action Notice. With regard to class members who passed away between 2002 and 2006, the Court has already determined, and had previously informed the parties of its decision, that it will not award damages to those class members who passed away between those years and who collected on Colegio's insurance program. It would be unfair and inequitable for a class member who collected to receive compensation.
Further support for the decision of the Court that the heirs have sufficient information is found in statements of an individual who not only mailed her own opt-out, but also mailed one on behalf of her deceased father who is also part of the class (No. 364, p. 10).
IV. Outdated Record With Colegio
Colegio argues that it was unforeseeable that many class members would have an outdated record with Colegio because of death, because of recent changes of address, or because they are no longer part of Colegio. This argument fails. As explained above, it was expected that the individually-mailed class notice would not reach every class member. This is specifically why the Court established the other methods for distributing the Class Action Notice, such as posting it on the Colegio's website, the Court's website, and the other methods explained previously in the section of this Order dealing with the undelivered mail. As such, the Court finds that Colegio's allegation that it was "unexpected" that Colegio had outdated records is incorrect.
V. Class Members Who Worked for Non-Profit Legal Organizations
Colegio argues that confusion has been created among class members who worked, during the relevant time period, for the nonprofit legal organizations who filed motions to intervene in this case. Specifically, Colegio argues that said class members do not know whether they must opt-out, since the non-profit organizations state that they and not the class members paid for the class members' dues owed to Colegio.
Said argument equally fails. No confusion has been or should have been created by the mere filing of the motions to intervene. The controlling source providing instructions on the opt-out procedures is the Class Action Notice. Said Notice clearly states that it is the class members who must decide whether they wish to opt-out. The mere filing of the motions to intervene by the nonprofit legal organizations is insufficient to alter the clear instructions of the Class Action Notice. If the Court were to grant the motions to intervene, then the Court might have to revisit this issue. However, since the Court has not ruled on said motions, the procedures set out in the Class Action Notice are controlling and there is no reason to extend the opt-out deadline.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Colegio's motions for an extension of time to the opt-out period.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 28th day of February, 2011.
APPENDIX I COMUNICACIÓN AUTORIZADA POR EL TRIBUNAL, EMITIDA POR EL COLEGIO DE ABOGADOS DE PUERTO RICO EN EL CASO DE BROWN, et al v. COLEGIO DE ABOGADOS DE PUERTO RICOSobre esta comunicación:
Todo abogado que haya postulado en los tribunales del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico entre los años 2002 al 2006, a quien se le haya requerido pagarle al Colegio de Abogados su cuota anual de membresía, es parte de la clase demandante en el caso de Brown, et al v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, Núm. Civil 06-1645 (JP), ante el Tribunal de Distrito de los EE.UU. para el Distrito de Puerto Rico.
A todo abogado que pertenece a la clase demandante se le envió una notificaci ón individual a la dirección que consta en los expedientes del Colegio. Esa notificación individual es la notificación oficial para la clase en este caso y hay copias de la misma disponibles en el portal de Internet del Tribunal de Distrito de los EE.UU. para el Distrito de Puerto Rico, asf como en el portal del Colegio de Abogados. Siendo esta la única notificación oficial para la clase, todos los miembros deberán leerla y atenerse estrictamente a sus términos.
Esta es una comunicación generada por el Colegio de Abogados, con el consentimiento del Tribunal de Distrito. Si usted necesita información adicional sobre este caso autorizada por el tribunal, puede it a los portales mencionados anteriormente o visitar awww.colegiolitigation.com. Además, puede obtener información si llama, libre de cargos, al 1-866-329-4703.
Historia del programa de seguro de vida en cuestión:
La historia de este litigio está documentada en las siguientes opiniones pertinentes de los tribunales:
1. Romero v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 59 F. Supp. 2d 260 (D.P.R. 1999)
2. Romero v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 204 F.3d 291 (1st Cir. 2000)
3. Romero v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, Civil No. 94-2503, número de documento 113 (D.P.R. Sept. 26, 2002)
4. Brown v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 579 F. Supp. 2d 211 (D.P.R. 2008)
5. Brown v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 613 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2010)
6. Brown v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 2011 WL 497952 (D.P.R. Feb. 9, 2011)
En este momento el Colegio tiene las siguientes órdenes en apelación ante el Primer Circuito:
1. Orden del Tribunal de Distrito consignada en el documento número 202 en la cual el Tribunal, entre otras cosas, emite una orden de proteción que le impide al Colegio, sin permiso previo del Tribunal, tener contacto directo o indirecto, o comunicació con los miembros de la clase sobre este litigio o las reclamaciones que en él se hacen, hasta tanto se le haya enviado una notificación a la clase y se hayan completado los procedimientos para optar por la exclusión.
2. Orden del Tribunal de Distrito consignada en el documento número 276 en la cual el Tribunal determina que no considerará opciones de exclusión previas a la Notificación de Pleito de Clase.
Estas se pueden ver en el registro electrónico de documentos del Tribunal de Distrito conocido como CM/ECF que se encuentra enhttps://ecf.prd.uscourts.gov y, luego de ingresar con su contraseña a CM/ECF, usted puede buscar dichas Ordenes bajo 3:06-cv-01645-JP.
La situación del caso al día de hoy es que los miembros tienen hasta el 26 de febrero de 2011 para enviar sus peticiones de exclusión con matasellos de esa fecha. La efectividad de las opciones de exclusión dependerá de la estricta adhesión a las instrucciones en la notificación oficial ala clase. Lo único que se requiere para optar válidamente por la exclusión es una solicitud por escrito, conmatasellos del 26 de febrero de 2011, o antes, que diga "No quiero ser parte de la Clase con Derecho a Resarcimiento [Damages Class] en el caso de Brown v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, CV 06-1645", La solicitud debe estar firmada, e incluir elnombre del miembro dela clase, su direción y número de teléfono en letra de molde debajo de la firma. La dirección que use el miembro de la clase en su solicitud de exclusión debe ser la dirección a la cual se envió por correo la notificación individual. En otras palabras, la direción que consta en los expedientes del Colegio y donde los miembros de la clase reciben la correspondencia enviada por el Colegio. Luego de cumplir con todos estos requisitos, la solicitud se debe enviar a: Brown v. Colegio de Abogados Administrator, PO Box 2439, Faribault, MN 55021-9139.
Si alguna organización obufete de abogados pagó la cuota de afiliación al Colegio de algún abogado para alguno de los años cubiertos por esta demanda, es prerrogativa del abogado individual decidir si opta por la exclusión o no, según se indica aquí.
Por último, ya que los demandantes en este caso pidieron garantías para la sentencia y bajo la Regla 62(d) del reglamento Federal de Procedimiento Civil era necesaria la garantía para obtener una suspensió de la ejecución de la sentencia, el Colegio decidió prestar su propiedad inmueble en garanti´a. Consecuentemente, el proceso para optar por la exclusión tendrá un impacto beneficioso sobre la responsabilidad civil que tenga que pagar finalmente el Colegio en este caso. Según se ha expresado el tribunal de Apelaciones de EE.UU.,
Si al Colegio le asiste la razón en cuanto al grado de apoyo con el que cuenta entre su membresía, este grupo que habrá de optar por la exclusión bien podría incluir la mayor parte de todos aquellos que con gusto obtuvieron el seguro al precio que se les cobró, por ende reduciendo significativamente la sentencia final. El Colegio tendr´ derecho a una reducción proporcional de la cantidad a resarcir de conformidad con dichas opciones de exclusión. Brown v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 613 F.3d 44, 54 (1st Cir. 2010)
Exhortamos a todos los miembros de la clase que deseen pedir su exclusión de la clase certificada a que lo hagan sin demora y antes del 26 de febrero de 2011.
APPENDIX II
(480) 505-8877 Our Commercials Bob's Video Blog Help Forums Domains Hosting Email Websites Search Engines SSL Security Resellers Affiliates Auctions My Account WHOIS search results for: Is this your Want to buy YONOSOYDEEESACLASE.COM domain? this domain?
Username / Customer# Password Create Account | Forgot Password? USD empty Deals of the Day 24/7 Sales Support WHOIS Domain Check (Registered) Add hosting, email and more. Get it with our Domain Buy service. The data contained in GoDaddy.com, Inc.'s WHOIS database, while believed by the company to be reliable, is provided "as is" with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy. This information is provided for the sole purpose of assisting you in obtaining information about domain name registration records. Any use of this data for any other purpose is expressly forbidden without the prior written permission of GoDaddy.com, Inc. By submitting an inquiry, you agree to these terms of usage and limitations of warranty. In particular, you agree not to use this data to allow, enable, or otherwise make possible, dissemination or collection of this data, in part or in its entirety, for any purpose, such as the transmission of unsolicited advertising and solicitations of any kind, including spam. You further agree not to use this data to enable high volume, automated or robotic electronic processes designed to collect or compile this data for any purpose, including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes.Please note: the registrant of the domain name is specified in the "registrant" field. In most cases, GoDaddy.com, Inc. is not the registrant of domain names listed in this database.
Registrant:
Rafael Tirado
Cond. Sky Tower
Apt. 11-C
San Juan, 00926
Puerto Rico
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: YONOSOYDEESACLASE.COM
Created on: 09-Feb-11
Expires on: 09-Feb-12
Last Updated on: 10-Feb-11
Administrative Contact:
Tirado, Rafael ratirap@Cond. Sky Tower
Apt. 11-C
San Juan, 00926
Puerto Rico
(787) 502-6043
Technical Contact:
Tirado, Rafael ratirap@Cond. Sky Tower
Apt. 11-C
San Juan, 00926
Puerto Rico
(787) 502-6043
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.DREAMHOST.COM
NS2.DREAMHOST.COM
NS3.DREAMHOST.COM
Registry Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Status: clientRenewProhibited
Registry Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registry Status: clientUpdateProhibited
See Underlying Registry Data Report Invalid Whois
NameMatch Recommendations
GoDaddy.com NameMatch has found similar domain names related to your search. Registering multiple domain names may help protect your online brand against internet squatters who could try to buy up these names in the hopes of selling them to you at an inflated price. It also enables you to capture more Web traffic, which you can then direct to your primary domain. Domains available for new registration: Alternate TLDs SAVE! SAVE! SAVE! Similar Domains Similar Premium Domains Domains available at Go Daddy Auctions ®: poconosmap.com Ends on: 2/11/2011 1:41:00 PM vonos.com Ends on: 2/18/2011 12:00:00 AM vonos.net: Ends on: 2/18/2011 12:00:00 AM mikonosisland.com Ends on: 2/18/2011 11:22:00 PM poconosfishing.com Ends on: 2/18/2011 1:43:00 PM poconosevents.com Ends on: 2/22/2011 9:16:00 AM Learn more about Private Registration Deluxe Registration Business Registration Protected Registration ICANN fee
[] yonosoydeesaclase.info $1.99*/yr [] yonosoydeesaclase.net $12.99*/yr [] yonosoydeesaclase.org $9.99*/yr [] yonosoydeesaclases.com $11.99*/yr [] theyonosoydeesaclase.com $11.99*/yr [] yonosoydeesaclasesite.com $11.99*/yr [] myyonosoydeesaclase.com $11.99*/yr [] yonosoydeesaclaseonline.com $11.99*/yr [] Leccion.net $750.00* [] YonNtic.com $280.00* [] YonDero.com $4,999.00* [] HereAndYonder.com $1,888.00* [] Yond.net $2.788.00* [] Yonn.com $1,948.00* [] $500.00* [] $1,500.00* [] $150.00* [] $350.00* [] $450.00* [] $599.00* *. Plus of $0.18 per domain name year. **. CA domain names will be registered through Go Daddy Domains Canada, Inc., a CIRA certified registrar.APPENDIX III
54 Mundiales EL NUEVO DÍA VIERNES, 25 DE FEBRERO DE 2011Megarredada contra los narcos Agentes de EE.UU. arrestan al menos clen personas
POR ALICIA A. CALDWELLThe Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Las autoridades policiales de Estados Unidos arrestaron ayer a un centenar de personas al iniciar redadas a nivel nacional de supuestos miembros de los carteles mexicanos de la droga, en respuesta a la muerte de un agente estadounidense en México la semana pasada.
"Enviamos un mensaje a los carteles, de que no toleraremos el asesinato de un agente estadounidense ni de ningún funcionario estadounidense", dijo Carl Pike, titular adjunto de la división de operaciones especiales de la agencia antidrogas DEA.
Durante una redada en Houston, un agente sufrió heridas de bala, pero su vida no corría peligro, dijo un funcionario federal que habló bajo la condición de anomimato. El tiroteo se produjo durante un operativo de la Oficina Federal de Alcohol, Tabaco y Armas de Fuego (ATF por sus siglas en inglés) junto con la Policía local. El autor de los disparos fue apresado.
Pike dijo que la redada nacional, iniciada el miércoles y que se prolongaría hasta hoy, apunta a presuntos delincuentes vinculados con cualquier cartel mexicano en un intento por desbaratar el narcotráfico en Estados Unidos.
"Esto es personal", dijo Louie García, agente a cargo de la unidad de operaciones especiales del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas de Estados Unidos (ICE, por sus siglas en inglés). "Perdimos un agente, perdimos un buen agente. Tenemos que responder".
Las redadas, que se realizan también en Brasil, El Salvador, Panamá, Colombia y México, son coordinadas por la DEA y el ICE.
Para ayer por la mañana, los agentes en Atlanta, San Luis, Denver, Detroit, San Antonio, San Diego, Chicago y Nueva Jersey se habían incautado de $4.5 millones en efectivo y una veintena de armas, arrestado a un centenar de personas y confiscado unos 12 kilos de metanfetamina, 107 de cocaína, 2.5 de heroína y 150 de marihuana en unos 150 lugares distintos.
Jaime Zapata, agente del ICE, fue asesinado y su colega Victor Avila fue herido en México el 15 de febrero cuando la camioneta Chevrolet Suburban en la que viajaban fue obligada a salir del camino por dos vehículos en que iban hombres armados.
Los agentes se Identificaron como diplomáticos estadounidenses momentos antes de que les dispararan, dijeron las autoridades.
Las autoridades mexicanas han arrestado a una persona en relación con el ataque, atribuido a la pandilla de sicarios Los Zetas, entre cuyos miembros hay ex soldados de las fuerzas especiales.
"Vamos a desbaratar la distribución de narcóticos en Estados Unidos, cualquiera que sea el cartel al cual está adheridos", dijo Pike. "Sería inútil enviar un mensaje a un cartel cuando todos son igualmente culpables".
Pike dijo que las redadas eran una respuesta directa al asesinato de Zapata, pero la mayoría de los sospechosos ya eran blancos de otras investigaciones.
"La gente hizo muchos sacrificios" para realizar estas redadas, dijo Pike. "Es importante como homenaje a la memoria del agente muerto, pero además la situación nos obliga. Si no devolvemos el golpe, algún mlembro de un cartel de 18 afios se dirá, `Como no hicieron nada, cualquier ciudadano estadounidense es un blanco válido'".
Exhibit
Exhibit