ORDER REGARDING JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION (Doc. 302)

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, District Judge.

On October 2, 2015, Plaintiffs Efrain Munoz, Leona Lovette, Stephanie Melani, Iris Grant, and John Hoffman, and Daniel Maga, II (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants PHH Corp., PHH Mortgage Corp, PHH Home Loans, LLC (collectively referred to herein as "PHH"), and Atrium Insurance Co. ("Atrium" and together with PHH, "Defendants") filed a Joint Motion for Approval of the Proposed Form and Manner of Notice of Pendency of Class Action. (Doc. 302.)

The Court has determined that the matter is appropriate for resolution on the jointly submitted papers. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for November 20, 2015, is HEREBY VACATED, and the matter is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(g).

I. Background

On June 11, 2015, the Court certified this matter as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of:

All persons who obtained residential mortgage loans originated and/or acquired by PHH and/or its affiliates on or after June 2, 2007, and, in connection therewith, purchase private mortgage insurance and whose loans were included within PHH's captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements (the "Class").

(Docs. 230, 288.) The parties now request approval of the Proposed Legal Notice of Pendency of Class Action. (Doc. 302-1 and 302-2.)

II. Legal Standard

For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), such as that certified here, the Court must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). The notice "must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language" the following:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(i)-(vii). Class notice must be "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." Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 812 (1985) (citation omitted).

III. Discussion

A. Contents of the Notice

Having reviewed the proposed class notice, the Court finds that it contains the information contemplated by Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(i)-(vii). Specifically, the proposed class notice provides information regarding (i) the nature and background of this action, (ii) the definition of the certified class, (iii) the allegations of the class and Defendants' defenses, (iv) the option of a class member to obtain an attorney; (v) the option for exclusion from the class and any result of this case, (vi) the time (anticipated to be 45 days after mailing of the notice) and manner (by letter sent to an address) for requesting exclusion,1 and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on class members. (Doc. 302, Exs. A and B.) Additionally, the proposed class notice provides class members with options regarding how to obtain more information about this case, including through a dedicated website (proposed name: http://www.PHHPMIRESPAlitigation.com), a toll-free litigation hotline. The proposed class notice also provides contact information for Plaintiffs' counsel and information on how to examine the Court's file. (Docs. 302-1, Exs. A and B.)

B. Mailing and Publishing of Class Notice

The parties propose dissemination of the class notice through: (1) a direct mailing to individual class members ("Individual Notice") ("Exhibit A"); (2) a summary notice published in a national newspaper, USA Today ("Publication Notice" — with the exact text of the Class Notice reformatted for publication purposes)("Exhibit B") (together with Exhibit A, "Class Notice"); and (3) on an internet website, identified above, dedicated to the litigation. (Doc. 302 at 3.)

With regard to direct mailing, the parties explain that the Individual Notice will be sent by a third party administrator by first-class mail to the last known address of each class member. (Doc. 302 at 4.) Notice "by first-class mail can satisfy the best notice practicable when there is no indication that any of the class members cannot be identified through reasonable efforts." Hunt v. Check Recovery Sys., Inc., No. 05-cv-04993, 2007 WL 2220972, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2007) (affirming a Rule 23(b)(3) notice plan providing for delivery of notice by first class mail). Here, Defendants reportedly provided a complete class list containing last known addresses and additional personal identifiers on September 25, 2015. (Doc. 302 at 4.)

The Court finds that the individual notice contemplated by the parties is the best notice practicable given the availability of class members' last known addresses. However, the parties have failed to provide information regarding tracking of the mailing or any processes for handling mail returned as undeliverable. Additionally, the parties have failed to specify how the Court would be informed as to the successes or failures of providing individual notice. Nonetheless, the parties' request for approval of individual notice by mailing shall be granted. To address the Court's concerns, Plaintiffs' counsel or the third-party administrator shall be directed to submit a declaration(s) detailing the processes for handling mail returned as undeliverable, efforts undertaken to re-serve the notice, along with information regarding the number of successful/unsuccessful mailings.

With regard to publication, within fourteen (14) days after individual notices are mailed, Plaintiffs will cause the Publication Notice to appear in USA Today, a national publication with an approximate Monday through Thursday daily circulation of 1,104,259. (Doc. 302-3 at 3.) The Individual and Publication Notices also will be posted on the dedicated litigation website. Plaintiffs further represent that, subject to Defendants' approval, Plaintiffs' counsel will provide summary information regarding the case on the dedicated website, along with frequently asked questions and relevant case documents.

The parties believe that the number and media variety of their notice plan will ensure the dissemination of adequate and reasonable notice to a class numbering at least in the tens of thousands located throughout the country. Analogous notice plans have been approved by other courts. See, e.g., Makaeff, 2015 WL 563812 at *6-7 (approving multi-tiered notice plan that included individualized mailings, a case-specific website, a toll-free number, and publication in USA Today); Flynn v. Sony Elecs., Inc., No. 09-cv-2109, 2015 WL 128039, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2015) (approving a multi-tiered notice plan that included individualized mailings, a case-specific website, and publication of notice in national magazines).

Having considered the parties' proposal for dissemination of class notice, the Court finds that the procedures established for mailing, publication and distribution constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).

IV. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.