J. et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
J.T., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-06524-LJC
ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER
BRIEFING REGARDING PROPOSED
CLASS NOTICE
Re: Dkt. No. 217
The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulation to adopt a proposed form of class notice.
ECF No. 217. The parties propose mailing a postcard to all class members, which will include
some very basic information about this class action and the parties’ options, as well as a link to a
website with more detailed information. The Court is not opposed to that general approach, but it
has identified several non-substantive concerns that might warrant revisions to the proposed
notice.
First, the proposed website text includes the phrase “Give Class Counsel your current
contact information” in large, apparently hyperlinked text inserted in the middle of a bulleted list.
ECF No. 217-2 at 1. The location and lack of further information about that text is potentially
confusing. It is not clear if the parties intended it to appear in that location. It may also not be
clear to class members whether they are required to provide contact information, or why that
might wish to do so. The parties might consider providing additional explanation, moving that
link to follow the final FAQ section (which references providing updated contact information), or
both.
Second, the proposed website text includes the following sentence: “If money or benefits
are obtained from the Defendants through a trial or settlement, you will be notified about how to
Case 3:23-cv-06524-LJC Document 231 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ask for a share.” ECF No. 217-2 at 1. That text does not address the possibility that class
members might be sent their shares of any damage award without need for a claims process, or
what if any notice class members would receive if Plaintiffs do not prevail. The parties are
encouraged to consider words to the effect of: “If you remain in the class, you will be notified
about the outcome of this litigation. If the Plaintiffs obtain any money or benefits from the
Defendants and you are entitled to a share, then either your share will be sent to you directly or
you will be notified about how to claim it.” The parties are encouraged to consider similar
modifications to the last sentence on page 3, ECF No. 217-2 at 3, and to the final FAQ section
“Will I get money after the trial?”, ECF No. 217-2 at 6.
Third, the FAQ section under “What is this lawsuit about?” includes an apparent
typographical error, referencing a “garagelike aream” (sic) near the middle of the paragraph. ECF
No. 217-2 at 2.
Fourth, the first paragraph on page 3 appears under a blank heading, which might be
missing text that the parties intended to include. ECF No. 217-2 at 3.
Fifth, the FAQ section under “Am I part of the Class?” might be clearer if it included
words to the effect of “unless you exclude yourself from the Class” at the end of the sentence.
ECF No. 217-2 at 4.
Sixth, the FAQ section entitled “Do I have to come to court?” does not address the
possibility that a class member might be subpoenaed to testify. Unless all parties agree that they
will not subpoena class members (other than the named Plaintiffs) to testify, the notice should
address that possibility. If all parties agree that class members will not be required to testify, they
may address that agreement in a joint statement to the Court and leave this portion of the notice
unchanged.
The parties are directed to file no later than one week from the date of this Order: (1) an
amended proposed notice that includes revisions to account for any of those concerns that the
parties agree warrant modifications to the notice; (2) a redline identifying all changes from the
original proposed notice; and/or (3) if the parties do not believe that some or all of the concerns
above warrant modification to the class notice, a joint statement explaining why that is so.
Case 3:23-cv-06524-LJC Document 231 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
No later than January 23, 2026 the parties shall file a revised form of notice addressing the
Court’s other concerns, a redline identifying all such changes, and/or a joint statement addressing
the reasons they do not believe changes are warranted, as discussed above in part C.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 16, 2026
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-06524-LJC Document 231 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 3