Peters v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-7093,91-7093
• Citation: 966 F.2d 1483
• Parties: , 22 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1123 Joseph PETERS, Appellant, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Page 1483

966 F.2d 1483

296 U.S.App.D.C. 202, 22 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1123

Joseph PETERS, Appellant, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 91-7093.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 2, 1992.

Decided June 16, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 91-00088).

Lawrence M. Mann, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Joseph S. Crociata, with whom Martha Ann Knutson, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before WALD, SENTELLE and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal, Joseph Peters challenges the district court's dismissal of his suit against the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) for injuries arising out of a train derailment as well as its denial of his motion for relief from the dismissal order. The district court concluded that Peters was bound by a settlement in a class action filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We affirm.

I.

On the night of January 29, 1988, Peters was a passenger on the "Night Owl," a train operated by Amtrak between Washington, D.C. and Boston, Massachusetts. While operating in the vicinity of Chester, Pennsylvania, the "Night Owl" collided with a ballast regulator, a piece of maintenance equipment travelling on the same track, and derailed, injuring Peters and other passengers. Peters and others were admitted to Sacred Heart Medical Center (Sacred Heart) in Chester, Pennsylvania for treatment.

Thereafter, on March 1, 1988, a class action suit, captioned Sala v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 88-1572 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 1, 1988), was filed on behalf of the injured passengers in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 29, 1988, the district court certified the class and directed Amtrak to provide a passenger list to the class counsel. Amtrak compiled the list from Sacred Heart's records on the injured passengers. The records included progress notes listing Peters' address as "930 Westend Avenue, New York, NY." ¹ It did not provide Peters' apartment number or zip code. ²

At the district court's direction, class counsel sent to the class members, by first class mail, a notice of pendency of class action on August 26, 1988, and a notice of proposed settlement on July 28, 1989. Peters maintains he received neither notice. On September 27, 1989, the district court approved the settlement agreement and on April 23, 1990, it issued an order dismissing the class action with prejudice.

On January 4, 1991, Peters sued Amtrak in the federal district court for the District of Columbia seeking $500,000 in compensatory and $1,000,000 in punitive damages for the injuries he sustained in the train wreck. Amtrak moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) asserting the defense of res judicata. Amtrak argued that Peters was bound by the settlement in the class action because he was a member of the class and had not opted out. Peters argued that he was not bound because he had not received notice.

The district court granted Amtrak's motion holding that due process required only that Amtrak use its "best efforts" and did not "guarantee ... actual notice." District Court Memorandum at 6. The district court further held that Amtrak's "attempts to notify [Peters] of the pendency of the class action were reasonable" and that Peters was bound by the settlement. Id. at 6-7.

Thereafter, on April 19, 1991, Peters moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for relief from the district court's order. Peters argued that he had just received from the hospital the emergency department record which included his apartment number. Peters also pointed to an Amtrak Injury/Illness Report he had submitted to Amtrak's New York office to argue that Amtrak had misled the court about its knowledge of his address. On May 24, 1991, the district court denied the motion without opinion.

Peters now appeals arguing that Amtrak had a duty to use reasonable efforts in providing class counsel with the passengers' names and addresses which duty it breached when it provided an incomplete address for Peters. We note that in his opposition to Amtrak's motion to dismiss, Peters argued that Amtrak had a duty under both the due process clause and rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to provide the best notice practicable. Peters claimed below that Amtrak breached that duty when the notices were mailed to his Manhattan address without an apartment number and with an incorrect zip code.

II.

A. Standard of Review

We review the district court's grant of Amtrak's rule 12(c) motion de novo. See International Paper Co. v. Town of Jay, 928 F.2d 480, 482 (1st Cir.1991); Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 812, 110 S.Ct. 59, 107 L.Ed.2d 26 (1989); Jablonski v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 290 (3d Cir.1988). We will affirm the district court if the moving party demonstrates that no material fact is in dispute and that it is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Jablonski, 863 F.2d at 290; 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure (Wright & Miller) § 1368, at 517-18 (2d ed. 1990); cf. Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227, 241 (D.C.Cir.1986) (in reviewing grant of rule 12(c) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, "allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader") (citation omitted), rev'd on other grounds, 482 U.S. 64, 107 S.Ct. 2246, 96 L.Ed.2d 51 (1987). Moreover, we "view the facts presented in the pleadings and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Jablonski, 863 F.2d at 290-91; Wright & Miller § 1368, at 518-19. Finally, we review the district court's denial of Peters' Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Lepkowski v. United States Dep't of Treasury, 804 F.2d 1310, 1315 (D.C.Cir.1986).

B. Peters' Inadequate Notice Claim

Where, as here, a class action is maintainable because common questions of law or fact predominate, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), rule 23 requires that "the court ... direct to the members of the class the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable efforts." Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2). The rule provides that "[i]ndividual notice must be sent to all class members whose names and addresses may be ascertained through reasonable effort." Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 2150, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974). The purpose of rule 23(c)(2) is to afford members of the class due process which, in the context of the rule 23(b)(3) class action, guarantees them the opportunity to be excluded from the class action and not be bound by any subsequent judgment. Id. at 173-74, 94 S.Ct. at 2150.

It is beyond dispute that notice by first class mail ordinarily satisfies rule 23(c)(2)'s requirement that class members receive "the best notice practicable under the circumstances." See, e.g., Eisen, 417 U.S. at 173-75, 94 S.Ct. at 2150-51; Jenkins v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 109 F.R.D. 269, 281 (E.D.Tex.1985), aff'd, 782 F.2d 468 (5th Cir.1986); Steiner v. Equimark Corp., 96 F.R.D. 603, 614 (W.D.Pa.1983); Trist v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 89 F.R.D. 1, 2 (E.D.Pa.1980); Peil v. National Semiconductor Corp., 86 F.R.D. 357, 375 (E.D.Pa.1980); Unicorn Field Inc. v. Cannon Group, Inc., 60 F.R.D. 217 (S.D.N.Y.1973). Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), and Eisen, Peters argued before the district court that the notices mailed to him were not "reasonably calculated" to inform him of his right to opt out because the address used by class counsel did not include his apartment number and used an incorrect zip code.

We reject Peters' argument. While Mullane and Eisen require that each individual identifiable "through reasonable effort" receive notice, their endorsement of first class mail as the means of accomplishing that notice as well as their emphasis on "notice reasonably calculated ... to apprise interested parties," Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. at 657, demonstrate that the due process clause does not amount to a guarantee of notice to a class member. Despite technological advances, the mail is not one hundred per cent reliable. See Weigner v. City of New York, 852 F.2d 646, 650 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1005, 109 S.Ct. 785, 102 L.Ed.2d 777 (1989). Yet the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the use of first class mail as a method of notice "reasonably calculated ... to apprise interested parties" of proceedings affecting their rights in a variety of contexts. See Tulsa Professional Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478, 484, 491, 108 S.Ct. 1340, 1344, 1348, 99 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988) (notice to creditor of estate); Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 799-800, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 2712, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983) (notice to mortgagee of tax foreclosure); Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444, 455, 102 S.Ct. 1874, 1880-81, 72 L.Ed.2d 249 (1982) (notice to public housing tenants of forcible entry and detainer actions); Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 214, 83 S.Ct. 279, 283, 9 L.Ed.2d 255 (1962) (notice of condemnation proceeding); Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 116, 77 S.Ct. 200, 203, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956) (same); Mullane, 339 U.S. at 319, 70 S.Ct. at 660. The Supreme Court is "obvious[ly] aware[ ] that not every first-class letter is received by the addressee." Weigner, 852 F.2d at 646; see also Mullane, 339 U.S. at 319, 70 S.Ct. at 660 ("reasonable risks that notice might not actually reach every beneficiary are justifiable"). In none of these cases did the Court require more than sending...