v. Holiday Magic, Inc., 550 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir.1977) (“Notice in a class suit must present a fair recital of the subject matter and proposed terms and [give] an opportunity to be heard to all class members.”). 114. No objector has challenged the mode of dissemination. Nor could any objector due so. Dissemination of the Class Notice in this case has been extraordinary. Where possible, each individual class member received individual notice. And the Class Notice was published in major newspapers throughout the country. Indeed, the dissemination of the Class Notice was ideal. See, e.g., Grunin, 513 F.2d at 121 (stating that individualized notice by mail is the best notice practicable in the class action context); In re Chambers Dev. Sec. Litig., 912 F.Supp. 822, 836 (W.D.Pa.1995) (<HOLDING>). 115. And the content of the Class Notice in
holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city holding that notice by mail or other means as certain to insure actual notice is minimum constitutional precondition holding that actual notice by mail in conjunction with published notice was best possible notice satisfying rule 23c holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice