U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART V— PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 114— CLASS ACTIONS

28 U.S.C. § 1715

Notifications to appropriate Federal and State officials

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Definitions.—(1)Appropriate federal official.—In this section, the term “appropriate Federal official” means—(A) the Attorney General of the United States; or(B) in any case in which the defendant is a Federal depository institution, a State depository institution, a depository institution holding company, a foreign bank, or a nondepository institution subsidiary of the foregoing (as such terms are defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)), the person who has the primary Federal regulatory or supervisory responsibility with respect to the defendant, if some or all of the matters alleged in the class action are subject to regulation or supervision by that person.(2)Appropriate state official.—In this section, the term “appropriate State official” means the person in the State who has the primary regulatory or supervisory responsibility with respect to the defendant, or who licenses or otherwise authorizes the defendant to conduct business in the State, if some or all of the matters alleged in the class action are subject to regulation by that person. If there is no primary regulator, supervisor, or licensing authority, or the matters alleged in the class action are not subject to regulation or supervision by that person, then the appropriate State official shall be the State attorney general.(b)In General.—Not later than 10 days after a proposed settlement of a class action is filed in court, each defendant that is participating in the proposed settlement shall serve upon the appropriate State official of each State in which a class member resides and the appropriate Federal official, a notice of the proposed settlement consisting of—(1) a copy of the complaint and any materials filed with the complaint and any amended complaints (except such materials shall not be required to be served if such materials are made electronically available through the Internet and such service includes notice of how to electronically access such material);(2) notice of any scheduled judicial hearing in the class action;(3) any proposed or final notification to class members of—(A)(i) the members’ rights to request exclusion from the class action; or(ii) if no right to request exclusion exists, a statement that no such right exists; and(B) a proposed settlement of a class action;(4) any proposed or final class action settlement;(5) any settlement or other agreement contemporaneously made between class counsel and counsel for the defendants;(6) any final judgment or notice of dismissal;(7)(A) if feasible, the names of class members who reside in each State and the estimated proportionate share of the claims of such members to the entire settlement to that State’s appropriate State official; or(B) if the provision of information under subparagraph (A) is not feasible, a reasonable estimate of the number of class members residing in each State and the estimated proportionate share of the claims of such members to the entire settlement; and(8) any written judicial opinion relating to the materials described under subparagraphs (3) through (6).(c)Depository Institutions Notification.—(1)Federal and other depository institutions.—In any case in which the defendant is a Federal depository institution, a depository institution holding company, a foreign bank, or a non-depository institution subsidiary of the foregoing, the notice requirements of this section are satisfied by serving the notice required under subsection (b) upon the person who has the primary Federal regulatory or supervisory responsibility with respect to the defendant, if some or all of the matters alleged in the class action are subject to regulation or supervision by that person.(2)State depository institutions.—In any case in which the defendant is a State depository institution (as that term is defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)), the notice requirements of this section are satisfied by serving the notice required under subsection (b) upon the State bank supervisor (as that term is defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)) of the State in which the defendant is incorporated or chartered, if some or all of the matters alleged in the class action are subject to regulation or supervision by that person, and upon the appropriate Federal official.(d)Final Approval.—An order giving final approval of a proposed settlement may not be issued earlier than 90 days after the later of the dates on which the appropriate Federal official and the appropriate State official are served with the notice required under subsection (b).(e)Noncompliance if Notice Not Provided.—(1)In general.—A class member may refuse to comply with and may choose not to be bound by a settlement agreement or consent decree in a class action if the class member demonstrates that the notice required under subsection (b) has not been provided.(2)Limitation.—A class member may not refuse to comply with or to be bound by a settlement agreement or consent decree under paragraph (1) if the notice required under subsection (b) was directed to the appropriate Federal official and to either the State attorney general or the person that has primary regulatory, supervisory, or licensing authority over the defendant.(3)Application of rights.—The rights created by this subsection shall apply only to class members or any person acting on a class member’s behalf, and shall not be construed to limit any other rights affecting a class member’s participation in the settlement.(f)Rule of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to expand the authority of, or impose any obligations, duties, or responsibilities upon, Federal or State officials.(Added Pub. L. 109–2, § 3(a), Feb. 18, 2005, 119 Stat. 7.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section applicable to any civil action commenced on or after Feb. 18, 2005, see section 9 of Pub. L. 109–2, set out as an Effective Date of 2005 Amendment note under section 1332 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 545 cases (357 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 9× “28 U.S.C. § 1715 (b). 4 The statute provides detailed requirements for the contents of such a notice.”
Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp., 214 F. Supp. 3d 877 (C.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 4× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1715 (d). Second, it must determine whether the notice requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) have been satisfied.”
Sabrina Laguna v. Coverall North Am., Inc., 753 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 13× “Finally, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it approved the settlement agreement consistent with the Class Action Fairness Act’s notice requirement described in 28 U.S.C. § 1715 (b) and (d). District Judge Chen dissented because he believed…”
Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., 297 F.R.D. 431 (E.D. Cal. 2013). · cites it 3× “Notice Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715 (b), “[n]ot later than 10 days after a proposed settlement of a class action is filed in court, each defendant that is participating in the proposed settlement shall serve upon the appropriate State official of…”
True v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 749 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (C.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 4× “) Notice of the initial proposed settlement was also mailed to the United States Attorney General and the Attorneys General of each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia, as required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715 (b). 5 (Kiser…”
In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig., 284 F.R.D. 249 (E.D. Pa. 2012). · cites it 4× “Following the hearing, the Court withheld ruling on the motion until the notice period required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715 (d) under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) had elapsed.”
Kenneth Chapman v. Tristar Prods., Inc., 940 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “Arizona argues that it has standing (1) under the doctrine of parens patriae, (2) under § 1715 of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715 , and (3) because it has a participatory interest as a “repeat player.”
Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp., 211 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (C.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 3× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1715 (d). Second, it must determine whether the notice requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) have been satisfied.”
The People of the State of Cal v. Intelligender, LLC, 771 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “Complementing the expansion of federal jurisdiction to ensure uniformity and fairness is CAFA’s class action settlement notice requirement, 28 U.S.C. § 1715 , which was intended to “provide a check against inequitable settlements.”
In re Nat'l Football League Players' Concussion Injury Litig., 307 F.R.D. 351 (E.D. Pa. 2015). · cites it 2× “The Notice given by the NFL Parties to state and federal officials pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715 fully satisfied the requirements of that statute.”
Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 695 F. Supp. 2d 521 (E.D. Ky. 2010). · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 1715 . On June 22, 2009, Defendants sent notice of settlement in this Action to the various Attorneys General of the United States, the 50 states and the District of Columbia.”
Oscar Ortega v. Uponor, Inc., 716 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “The district court determined that the classes complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, that the settlement terms were fair, and that the proposed notice satisfied the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1715 . It accordingly granted the…”
Show all 545 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b) — 7 cases
Sanft v. Sims Grp. USA Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2023).
In re Splunk Inc. Sec. Litig. (N.D. Cal. 2024).
Walkinshaw v. Saint Elizabeths Reg'l Med. Ctr. (D. Neb. 2023).
Sales v. United Road Servs., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2024).
Pipich v. O'Reilly Auto Enter., LLC (S.D. Cal. 2025).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d) — 1 case
Reyes v. Nocera Restaurant, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.