Opinion
Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-00092
2020-06-04
Trancito Isabel MIRANDA, Cesar Bautista, and Cesar Islas, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MAHARD EGG FARM, INC., and Mahard Pullet Farms, Inc.
Aaron Michael Johnson, Rebecca Clare Eisenbrey, Equal Justice Center, Austin, TX, Anna P. Prakash, Nicole J. Schladt, Robert L. Schug, Nichols Kaster PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, Shana Hope Khader, Equal Justice Center, Dallas, TX, for Trancito Isabel Miranda, Cesar Bautista, Cesar Islas. William Louis Davis, Julie Ann Farmer, Jackson Lewis PC, Dallas, TX, for Mahard Egg Farm, Inc., Mahard Pullet Farms, Inc.
Aaron Michael Johnson, Rebecca Clare Eisenbrey, Equal Justice Center, Austin, TX, Anna P. Prakash, Nicole J. Schladt, Robert L. Schug, Nichols Kaster PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, Shana Hope Khader, Equal Justice Center, Dallas, TX, for Trancito Isabel Miranda, Cesar Bautista, Cesar Islas.
William Louis Davis, Julie Ann Farmer, Jackson Lewis PC, Dallas, TX, for Mahard Egg Farm, Inc., Mahard Pullet Farms, Inc.
ORDER
AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the Motion for Supplemental Settlement Notice filed by Plaintiffs Trancito Isabel Miranda, Cesar Bautista, and Cesar Islas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (Dkt. #58). Having reviewed the motion and relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motion should be granted. BACKGROUND
This case arises from the purported violations of the Civil Rights Act committed by Defendants—employers of Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class. On March 5, 2020, the Court approved the parties' Preliminary Settlement Approval (the "Settlement Agreement") (Dkt. #55). The Settlement Agreement provided for notice to the Settlement Class using a mailed postcard and a settlement website (Dkt. #55 at p. 3). The postcard notices were mailed out on April 3, 2020 (Dkt. #58, Exhibit 1). But, many of the postcards were returned due to incorrect addresses, and many Settlement Class members were otherwise unable to be located (Dkt. #58, Exhibit 1). Nevertheless, the Settlement Class members were required to submit claim forms or to opt out of the settlement by June 2, 2020. Based on these facts, Plaintiffs filed this motion, asking the Court to allow additional settlement notice and to extend the deadline for members to file claim forms or opt out of the settlement (Dkt. #58).
The Settlement Class includes "[a]ll Hispanic individuals who were employed in a non-managerial position" by Defendants at their Chillicothe, Texas, facility "at any time from January 14, 2015, to the present." (Dkt. #55 at p. 2).
On May 19, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their motion for supplemental settlement notice (Dkt. #58). The Court ordered a shortened response time for the motion (Dkt. #60). Accordingly, on May 22, 2020, Defendants filed their response (Dkt. #61). Then, on May 26, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their reply (Dkt. #62).
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 23(e) governs the settlement of class actions and the notice that must be provided to class members. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e). This notice is "crucial to the entire scheme of Rule 23." In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig. (No. II) , 186 F.R.D. 403, 441 (S.D. Tex. 1999). It is the Court's duty to "direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the [proposed settlement] ...." FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e)(1)(B). The Court must also "direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances ...." FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(2)(B).
ANALYSIS
Here, Plaintiffs request that the Court permit them to serve a reminder notice to the Settlement Class. In particular, Plaintiffs want to serve their notice via postcard, text message, phone call, and television advertisement (Dkt. #58). Plaintiffs also seek an extension of time for the Settlement Class to file a claim form or to opt out of the settlement (Dkt. #58). Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' motion, stating that there is no basis for granting their requests (Dkt. #61). The Court, however, agrees with Plaintiffs and finds that such relief is warranted.
Many courts—including those in the Eastern District—have granted requests to send reminders to proposed class members. E.g., Wingo v. Martin Transp., Inc. , No. 2:18-CV-141-JRG, 2018 WL 6334312, at *11 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2018). Notably, the purpose of the initial notice letter is "to ensure that potential plaintiffs receive accurate and timely information" about the class action. Id. (citing Hoffmann–La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling , 493 U.S. 165, 169–70, 110 S.Ct. 482, 107 L.Ed.2d 480 (1989) ). Thus, the inclusion of a reminder notice only furthers the goals of the notice letter. Id.
For this reason, the Court grants Plaintiffs' request and permits Plaintiffs to send a reminder notice to the Settlement Class. The Court notes that such notice must be practicable under the circumstances. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Accordingly, the Court—taking guidance from district courts in the Fifth Circuit —further finds that the supplemental notice may be given by text message, phone call, and television advertisement.
See, e.g., Defrese-Reese v. Healthy Minds, Inc. , No. 18-1134, 2018 WL 6928920, at *4 (W.D. La. Dec. 19, 2018), report and recommendation adopted , No. CV 18-1134, 2019 WL 97042 (W.D. La. Jan. 3, 2019) ("Courts in the Fifth Circuit have approved the use of text message to facilitate notice to potential class members"); Peery v. Nixon Eng'g, LLC , No. 6:18-CV-358-ADA-JCM, 2019 WL 5027126, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2019) (approving notice via phone call to ensure receipt); In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon," 910 F. Supp. 2d 891, 939 (E.D. La. 2012) (using television to provide notice under Rule 23 ).
Furthermore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to extend the deadline an additional 60 days for the Settlement Class to file a claim form or to opt out of the settlement. "Extensions sought before a time period expires may be granted by the court, in its discretion, for ‘good cause.’ " Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC , No. 7-CV-1308, 2011 WL 13175661, at *4 (W.D. La. Oct. 31, 2011) (citing Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. , 50 F.3d 360, 367 (5th Cir. 1995) ) (determining whether the district court may extend the deadline to file opt-in notices in a class action suit). Here, Plaintiffs requested an extension before the June 2, 2020 deadline expired; thus, the Court must find that good cause exists for granting their request. See (Dkt. #58).
Where, as here, there are address errors or address changes for the Settlement Class, there is good cause to extend the deadline to file a claim or opt out (Dkt. #58, Exhibit 1). See id. (citation omitted) (stating that "an address change or address error might serve as ‘good cause’ for allowing an extension of time"). Moreover, the original notice period was 60 days, and the addition of another 60 days does not exceed the bounds of common notice periods. See Williams v. Sake Hibachi Sushi & Bar, Inc. , No. 3:18-CV-0517-D, 2018 WL 4539114, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2018) (citations omitted) (extending the deadline to 120 days for class members to opt in to a class action). Accordingly, the Settlement Class has until 60 days after the supplemental notice is mailed in which to file a claim form or to opt out of the settlement. See In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig. (No. II) , 186 F.R.D. at 443 (ordering supplemental notice to a settlement class and extending the deadline for the class members to opt out).
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED the following actions be taken:
1. A second mailing of a reminder Postcard Notice to all Settlement Class members, along with an additional statement explaining that Settlement Class members may use informal means such as phone calls, text messages, and social media to inform others about the settlement and direct them to the settlement website. See (Dkt. #58, Exhibit 3).
2. Advertisement of the settlement on Spanish-speaking television (KLTM Telemundo Texoma), using language consistent with the Settlement Agreement and agreed-upon class notice, broadcast throughout the Vernon-Chillicothe, Texas area, consisting of a 30-second ad running 86 times over a two-week period, beginning as soon as practicable following this Order.
3. Phone calls and text messages by Class Counsel to the phone numbers (where available) provided for Settlement Class members on the class list provided by Defendants to obtain updated addresses, encourage class members to notify other class members by informal means, and direct them to the settlement website.
It is further ORDERED that the deadline for prospective Settlement Class members to file a claim form or opt out of the settlement is extended to 60 days following the mailing of the supplemental notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED .