Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

Background

Under an earlier case-management order, the plaintiffs submitted a proposed plan for notifying members of three classes certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The parties resolved many issues, but continued to disagree about opt-out procedures, language access, reminder notices, information about the named plaintiffs’ individual claims, class names, the case-website domain name, listing the defendant teams, and several notice provisions.

The plan called for direct notice to known class members by email when an email address was available and by regular mail when a mailing address was available. The parties agreed that the direct notice would be one consolidated long-form notice covering all three classes. The court had set January 29, 2021, as the deadline for distributing the notices.

Legal standard

Rule 23(c)(2)(B) requires the court to direct the best notice practicable under the circumstances to class members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The notice must plainly explain the nature of the case, the class definition, the claims and issues, the right to appear through a lawyer, the right to request exclusion, the time and manner for requesting exclusion, and the binding effect of a class judgment. These requirements implement due process, which requires notice reasonably calculated to inform interested people about the case and give them an opportunity to object.

Court’s rulings

Opt-out procedures. The court held that the plaintiffs’ procedures satisfied Rule 23. The long-form notice gave clear instructions and allowed class members to request exclusion by mail or email to the claims administrator. The information requested was intended to prevent administrative errors involving players with similar names and was not unduly burdensome. The court rejected the defendants’ request for a separate opt-out form, whether prepaid or not, and approved the plaintiffs’ proposed procedures and related notice language.

Spanish-language notice. The court concluded that the long-form notice should be provided in both English and Spanish. Although the plaintiffs’ proposal directed Spanish speakers to a website and an 800 number for information in Spanish, the court noted that Spanish was the primary language of many class members and that the plaintiffs had provided earlier collective-action notices in both languages.

Reminder notice. The court rejected the defendants’ proposal for a second notice 30 days after the initial notice. The defendants had not provided evidence showing that a reminder was needed, and the court concluded that Rule 23 and due process did not require one.

Named plaintiffs’ individual claims. The court required the notice to explain the individual claims pursued by the named plaintiffs, in addition to the class claims. The court accepted that those claims could create a potential conflict of interest if the named plaintiffs’ individual recovery could exceed the recovery available to the classes. It approved the language in the defendants’ most recent proposed notice addressing those claims.

Class names and defendant teams. The court approved the plaintiffs’ short-form class names because they had been used throughout the case and appeared in the sections containing the actual class definitions. It also approved language listing the defendant teams, together with a statement that a person could still be a class member even if that person had not played for one of the listed clubs.

Website name and other provisions. The court required the plaintiffs to use the defendants’ proposed website domain name if it was available because that name was similar to one previously used for the collective action and would not suggest that Minor League Baseball itself was a party. If that domain name was unavailable, the plaintiffs were directed to choose a closely similar name. The court also approved including a statement that the case involved three separate classes, rejected language suggesting that class members could be adversely affected if they did not opt out and the plaintiffs did not prevail, and overruled the defendants’ objection to posting case documents on the website.

Disposition

The court ordered the parties to submit a stipulated proposed notice consistent with the order for final approval by 7:00 a.m. Pacific Time on January 18, 2021. The order resolved the parties’ disputes about the Rule 23 notice plan and did not decide the underlying claims.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it addressed administration and notice for a class action rather than deciding the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.