The district court found that that the plaintiffs complied with the schedule for the settlement process approved by the court, and thus, satisfied the requirements set forth in In re Mercury Interactive Corporation Securities Litigation, 618 F.3d 988, 994-95 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court observed that class members were provided Notice and access to Class Counsel’s pleading in connection with their motion for final approval of the Settlement and Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, as well as an adequate amount of time to review such information before the deadline for submission of requests for exclusion or objections.Additionally, the district court observed that the defendants provided notice of the proposed settlement to Federal and State officials, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b). However, after the parties entered into a First Amended Settlement, a notice was not sent out to the class.

See Int’l Union v. GMC, 497 F.3d 615, 630 (6th Cir. 2007).Next, the district court noted that CAFA also requires defendants to provide notice of the proposed class-action settlement to appropriate federal and state officials, as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1715(a). See 28 U.S.C. § 1715(a).

Practice Pointer – This one makes an important CAFA point! The new 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b) states that you have to give notice to the appropriate state and federal officials of proposed class settlements. If you don’t, then class members may refuse to comply with and may choose not to be bound by a settlement agreement.In this case, the United States District Judge Denise Page Hood writing for the Eastern District of Michigan handed down her Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Judge stated that GM had issued notice to the appropriate federal and state attorneys general pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b) and none submitted an objection.

Congress tried to address this problem by requiring, among other things, that each defendant participating in a proposed settlement serve notice on the “appropriate state official” of each state in which a class member resides and the appropriate Federal official. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b). Rather unhelpfully, the CAFA doesn’t say what exactly the appropriate state official is to do with the notice.

Congress tried to address this problem by requiring, among other things, that each defendant participating in a proposed settlement serve notice on the “appropriate state official” of each state in which a class member resides and the appropriate Federal official. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b). Rather unhelpfully, the CAFA doesn’t say what exactly the appropriate state official is to do with the notice.

Id. (codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)). 57.

(D) providing Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) notice to regulators and allowing them 90 days to object to the proposed settlement. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d) (“An order giving final approval of a proposed settlement may not be issued earlier than 90 days after the later of the dates on which the appropriate Federal official and the appropriate State official are served with the notice.”) An appealing defendant must be especially careful not to forget the CAFA notice requirements because, under 28 U.S.C. § 1715(e), a class member may choose not to be bound by a class action settlement for which the defendant did not provide the requisite regulator notice.

[3] To obtain the $10.00 payment, a class member needed to submit a valid claim form, which required her to declare, under the penalty of perjury, that the purchased test inaccurately predicted her child’s gender.[4] In approving the settlement, the district court found that Intelligender satisfied its obligation under 28U.S.C.§1715 to provide notice of the settlement to the appropriate state and federal officials.[5] On November9, 2012, the People of the State of California, by and through the SanDiego City Attorney, sued Intelligender for alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition and False Advertising Laws (claims also asserted in the Gram class action). Intelligender removed the State’s action, and the case was transferred to the court who presided over the Gram class action. Intelligender then moved under the All Writs Act to enjoin the State’s enforcement action (which sought injunctive relief and civil penalties (up to $2,500 per violation)); the district court denied the motion.

The rule further provides that the notice inform potential class members of the nature of the action, that class members may make an appearance through counsel, that class members may exclude themselves from the settlement, and that the class judgment will have a binding effect on class members who are not excluded. Because individual notices to all the 3,547 were mailed, the Court found that notice provided was reasonable, adequate, and the best notice practicable under the circumstances and satisfied the requirement as set out in Rule 23.Next, the Court noted that CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, requires each defendant participating in a proposed class settlement to provide appropriate state officials with information about the settlement, including, inter alia, a copy of the complaint, notice of any judicial hearings, any notification to class members, and any final judgments on the settlement. The defendants sent notice packets to the appropriate State and Federal officials on June 21, 2011, and the parties therefore requested the Court to withhold entry of the Final Order approving the settlement until after the 90 days expired as required for notice pursuant to § 1715(d).

The court may not issue a final settlement order until 90 days after the appropriate federal and state officials are served. A class member may also refuse to comply with and choose not to be bound by a settlement agreement or consent decree in a class action if the class member can show that the notice requirements of 28 USC Section1715 have not been properly provided. Need help?