Whether class members received constitutionally adequate notice under Hisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioners, class members in settled class-actions, did not receive notice of a requirement, imposed postsettlement, to have filed an individual lawsuit in order to be entitled to recovery under the settlements until after the deadline to file such suits had passed. The court of appeals nevertheless held that petitioners were not denied due process, because they purportedly had notice of the suit-filing requirement in time to attempt to show cause why the failure to meet the deadline should be excused. That ground was not briefed but instead was raised by the court sua sponte at oral argument. The questions presented are: 1. Whether class members are given constitutionally adequate notice under Hisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, which requires direct individual notice when practicable, where a notice of a class action settlement that is mailed to some class members does not disclose a requirement to take certain action to preserve one’s entitlement to compensation under the settlement, and notice is not mailed to them or not mailed until after the deadline to comply with the requirement. 2. Whether it is a violation of due process or an abuse of discretion for a court of appeals to base its decision on a ground raised only by the court itself during oral argument. 3. Whether, regardless of notice, it violates due process to deny compensation to a class member for not meeting an eligibility qualification imposed by the claims administrator based on a post-settlement MDL procedural order and where the class member met the qualification at the time of settlement and at the time of claim submission.