Opinion
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC251579
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING, NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 7, 2005 be modified as follows:
On page 11, at the end of the first full sentence beginning “Disapproval of the proposed settlement . . . .�, add as footnote 9 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent
9Giampietro’s contention class members were effectively denied the right to opt out because the notice of the class settlement was constitutionally deficient, even if correct, does not alter our analysis. None of the unnamed class members would have been bound by a settlement that did not comply with minimal due process requirements. (Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts (1985) 472 U.S. 797, 811-812 [“If the forum State wishes to bind an absent plaintiff concerning a claim for money damages or similar relief at law, [fn. omitted] it must provide minimal procedural due process protection. The plaintiff must receive notice plus an opportunity to be heard and participate in the litigation, whether in person or through counsel. The notice must be the best practicable, ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ [Citations.] The notice should describe the action and the plaintiffs’ rights in it. Additionally, we hold that due process requires at a minimum that an absent plaintiff be provided with an opportunity to remove himself from the class by executing and returning an ‘opt out’ or ‘request for exclusion’ form to the court. Finally, the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members. [Citation.]�].)
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied. There is no change in the judgment.
PERLUSS, P. J., WOODS, J., ZELON, J.