B. et al v. Genesys Cloud Services, Inc.

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
A. B., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GENESYS CLOUD SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-03276-EMC
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY
CLASS SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
Docket No. 67
On August 27, 2026, the Court heard Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement. Following that hearing, the Court requested supplemental
briefing and adjustments to the Settlement Agreement, Notice Plan, and Claims Form. Now,
having fully received and considered the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion, supporting Memorandum of
Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Bryan Weir, the Declaration of Brandon Schwartz, the
Settlement Agreement, the Notice, the Claims Form, the objection and opt-out procedure, the
supplemental briefing, and the oral argument presented to the Court, and in recognition of the
Court’s duty to make a preliminary determination as to the reasonableness of any proposed class
action settlement, and to conduct a fairness hearing as to the good faith, fairness, adequacy, and
reasonableness of any proposed settlement, the Court finds as follows.
On April 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint (the “Complaint”)
against Genesys Cloud Services, Inc., alleging violations of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510, et seq. and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Pen. Code
§§ 630, et seq. arising out of the purported capture of individuals’ communications with the
National Domestic Violence Hotline (the “Hotline”).
After negotiating at arm’s length, Plaintiffs and Defendant have arrived at what the Court
Case 3:25-cv-03276-EMC Document 90 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 12

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
finds to be a fair and equitable settlement of all claims encompassed by Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The
proposed settlement fairly reflects the potential value of the claims settled, the litigation risks
faced by the plaintiffs, and the results obtained by the settlement. Plaintiffs and Defendant have
agreed to the entry of a Settlement Agreement and Release (“Agreement”), attached as Exhibit 1
to a Supplemental Brief filed in support of the Motion for Preliminary Approval. Dkt. No. 88-1.
The Claims Form in the Agreement has been updated as shown in Exhibit A to the updated
Agreement. Dkt. No. 88-1, Ex. A.
Defendant continues to deny all allegations contained in the Complaint. Plaintiffs have
moved this Court to (1) provisionally certify a settlement class; 2) preliminarily approve the
Agreement; (3) direct distribution to the class of a proposed Notice; and (4) set a hearing date for
final approval of the settlement. Defendant does not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for purposes of
settlement but reserves all rights and defenses with respect to the litigation. The Court finds that
the Proposed Class and Settlement Agreement meet the requirements of Rule 23, the factors the
Ninth Circuit has articulated for considering whether a class action settlement is fair, see Hanlon
v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Northern District of California’s
Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements.
I. ORDER CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS AND
APPOINTING CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND CLASS COUNSEL
Settlement Class. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Settlement Class, as
set forth in paragraph T of the Settlement Agreement and defined as follows, is preliminarily
certified for the purpose of settlement only:
All natural persons who, while residents of and present in California,
communicated with the National Domestic Violence Hotline through any
channel, from April 11, 2023, to the date of final judgment in the Action.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Genesys; (ii) Genesys’ parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates, officers, directors, investors, and employees; (iii) any entity in which Genesys has a
controlling interest; and (iv) any judge presiding over this Action, their staff, and the members of
the judge’s immediate family.
Case 3:25-cv-03276-EMC Document 90 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 12

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
The Court finds, subject to the Final Approval Hearing, that within the context of and for
the purposes of settlement only, the Settlement Class satisfies the prerequisites of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, predominance of
common issues, superiority, and that the Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Settlement
Class. The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets the numerosity requirement of Rule
23(a)(1) because it consists of approximately 100,000 class members. The Court finds that the
commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) is also met because there are issues of law and fact
common to the Class, such as whether they communicated with the Hotline and whether those
communications were intercepted or recorded by Genesys. Because Plaintiffs’ and the
Participating Class Members’ claims all arise from the same events and course of conduct, and are
based on the same legal theories, the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is also satisfied. The
adequacy of representation requirement set forth in Rule 23(a)(4) is also met here because the
Class Representative has the same interests as all members of the Settlement Class, and they are
represented by experienced and competent counsel.
Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court further finds that common issues predominate over
individual issues in the litigation. The Court also finds that class treatment is superior to other
means of resolving the instant dispute. Employing the class device here will conserve the
resources of the judicial system by avoiding the delay of repetitive proceedings and prevent the
inconsistent adjudications of similar issues and claims. Moreover, in this case, due to the sensitive
nature of the communications between Class Members and the Hotline, the class device will allow
the claims of Class Members to be resolved without exposing them to further risk of violence or
loss of anonymity.
Class Representatives and Class Counsel. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to
Rule 23(g), the Court appoints Bryan Weir and Brandon Haase of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC as
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court finds that these attorneys are competent and
capable of fairly and adequately representing the interests of the Class. Furthermore, Plaintiffs
A.B., C.D., and E.F. are appointed Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. The Court
finds that the Class Representatives will adequately represent the Settlement Class.
Case 3:25-cv-03276-EMC Document 90 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 12

4
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
II. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
The Court has reviewed the Agreement and the proposed Notice of Settlement. The Court
finds, on a on a preliminary basis, that the Agreement falls within the range of reasonableness of a
settlement that could ultimately be given final approval by this Court. The Court also finds, on a
preliminary basis, that the Agreement appears to be the product of non-collusive, arm’s-length
negotiations between counsel.
It appears to the Court on a preliminary basis that the total settlement amount of
$2,500,000 is fair and reasonable to all Class Members. It is true that the total potential verdict
value if Plaintiffs prevail on all claims is estimated at up to $1 billion, creating a recovery rate for
the settlement of about a quarter of a percent. This is an extremely steep discount. However, the
Court finds that the litigation risks in this case are significant. As the parties discussed at the
August 27, 2026 hearing, because of the nature of the technology Defendant used, the facts and
the mechanics of the alleged interception are uncertain and would require significant resources to
litigate. In addition, because of the anonymity of the class members, identifying class members
and distributing any recovery at trial to those class members would present significant challenges.
Thus, due to the uncertainty of Plaintiffs’ ability to prevail on their claims and the significant
challenges in both litigating those claims and identifying class members, the Court finds that the
settlement amount is fair and reasonable.
The Agreement provides that at least $500,000 of the total settlement amount will be
distributed as a cy pres award to the Hotline to be used solely to (1) fund domestic violence
awareness campaigns in California high schools and colleges, and (2) hire additional Hotline
advocates to support the anticipated increase in California-based outreach. The Hotline’s
designation as a cy pres awardee is not in exchange for any consideration on behalf of the Hotline,
and the Hotline is not a released party. The cy pres award is tailored to benefit the class members
by supporting domestic violence resources in California so as to ensure geographic congruence
with the class. See Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Cy pres
distributions must account for the nature of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the objectives of the underlying
statutes, and the interests of the silent class members, including their geographic diversity.”).
Case 3:25-cv-03276-EMC Document 90 Filed 10/16/26 Page 4 of 12

5
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
The Court further finds that the Settlement Agreement substantially fulfills the purposes
and objectives of the class action and provides substantial relief to the Settlement Class without
the risks, burdens, costs, or delay associated with continued litigation, trial, and/or appeal. The
Court also finds that the Settlement Agreement: (a) is the result of informed, arm’s-length
negotiations between experienced class action attorneys and made with the assistance of the
mediation services of Shirish Gupta of JAMS; (b) is sufficient to warrant notice of the Settlement
and the Final Approval Hearing to be disseminated to the Settlement Class; and (c) meets all
applicable requirements of law, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Class Action
Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715, the United States Constitution, and the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action
Settlements.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court therefore preliminarily and conditionally
approves the Agreement, including payment of settlement administration costs. The Court does
not at this time approve any Class Representative Awards or proposed attorneys’ fees. Class
Counsel’s motion for Attorneys’ Fee and Expense Payment and Service Awards will be
considered separately from the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement. Class
Counsel shall file a motion for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses, and service
awards for the Class Representatives, at least 21 days prior to the deadline for Class Members to
object to or opt out of the Settlement. Settlement Class Members will also be notified through the
Notice of Class Counsel’s intent to seek attorneys’ fees, expenses, service awards, and the
amounts sought for each. Any order or proceeding relating to the amount of any award of
attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses or Service Awards, or any appeal from any order relating
thereto, or reversal or modification thereof, shall not operate to modify, terminate, or cancel the
Settlement Agreement.
III. NOTICE AND SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Settlement Administrator. The Court appoints Eisner Advisory Group LLC d/b/a
EisnerAmper (“Settlement Administrator”) to serve as the Settlement Administrator. The
Case 3:25-cv-03276-EMC Document 90 Filed 10/16/26 Page 5 of 12

6
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
Settlement Administrator is directed to carry out the Notice Plan in conformance with the
Settlement Agreement and the below stated schedule and to perform all other tasks that the
Settlement Agreement requires of the Settlement Administrator. The Settlement Administrator is
authorized to establish the Settlement Fund as provided in Section 3.2.1 of the Settlement
Agreement. All taxes on income or interest generated by the Settlement Fund, if any, shall be paid
out of the Settlement Fund.
Class Notice. The Court finds that the content, format, and method of disseminating notice
as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and documents in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion satisfy the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and are approved. Due to the risk of exposing
class members to abuse or violence that may result from direct outreach, the Court finds that
traditional notice mechanisms may be problematic and that publication notice is the best notice
reasonably available. As set forth in Paragraph 7.2.3 of the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement
Administrator shall effect publication notice for a period of sixty (60) calendar days to potential
Settlement Class Members via a digital banner on the home page of the Hotline’s website
(www.thehotline.org) displayed to website users reasonably believed to be located in California
when accessed on both desktop and mobile devices. The Settlement Administrator shall also
effect publication notice via advertisements with the material provisions of the Publication Notice
published in the following publications: LA Daily News, Orange County Register, San Diego
Tribune, San Jose Mercury, Sacramento Bee, Enterprise Record, Bakersfield Californian, Desert
Sun, Fresno Bee, the San Bernardino County Sun, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco
Chronicle. These publications have been selected to reach large population centers and areas with
elevated levels of domestic violence.
The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice Plan, the Settlement Website, and
the Toll-Free Number, and the form of notice, including the Detailed Notice and the text of the
Publication Notice. As stated in the Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval, class members
will be notified through the Notice of Plaintiffs’ intent to seek attorneys’ fees, expenses, service
awards, and the amounts sought for each. Nonmaterial modifications to the notices may be made
by the Settlement Administrator without further order of the Court, so long as they are approved
Case 3:25-cv-03276-EMC Document 90 Filed 10/16/26 Page 6 of 12

7
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
by the Parties and consistent in all material respects with the Settlement Agreement and this
Order. The Court further finds that the form, content, and method of giving notice to the
Settlement Class as described in the Notice Plan submitted with the Motion for Preliminary
Approval: (a) constitute the best practicable notice to the Settlement Class; (b) are reasonably
calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the
Action, the terms of the proposed Settlement, and their rights to object to the Settlement and to
exclude themselves from the Settlement Class; (c) are reasonable and constitute due, adequate, and
sufficient notice to those persons entitled to receive notice; and (d) satisfy the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court further finds that the notices are written in plain
language, use simple terminology, and are designed to be readily understandable by Settlement
Class Members. The Court further finds that the Notice Plan fully complies with the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action
Settlements. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves such notice and directs that such notice be
disseminated in the manner set forth in the proposed Settlement Agreement under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.
The Settlement Administrator shall provide notice consistent with the Notice Plan and
notice shall begin to be disseminated to Settlement Class Members within forty-five (45) days of
this Order (“Notice Date”). All costs associated with providing all forms of notice, responding to
inquiries from the Settlement Class, and performing all other Settlement Administrator duties shall
be paid out of the Settlement Fund, as set forth in paragraphs 3.2.5, 3.2.14.7, and 7.4 of the
Settlement Agreement.
CAFA Notice. The Court finds that the CAFA notice sent by the Settlement Administrator
on behalf of Genesys complies with the notice provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, and all other provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
Submission of Claims. To participate in the Settlement, Class Members must follow the
directions in the Settlement Agreement and Notice, and submit an Approved Claim with the
Settlement Administrator by the Claim Form deadline of sixty (60) days after the Notice Date.
The Claims Form shall be the updated version of the form, available as Exhibit A to the updated
Case 3:25-cv-03276-EMC Document 90 Filed 10/16/26 Page 7 of 12

8
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
Settlement Agreement. Dkt. No. 88-1, Ex. A. Class Members who do not submit a claim and
those who do not submit Valid Claims will not receive a Class Payment, but they will be bound by
the Settlement unless they opt out of the class. As detailed in the updated Claims Form and
supplemental briefing related to the Claims Form, Class Members will only be required to provide
their full name, street name, zip code, and email address to submit a claim. Additional identifying
information, such as their street number, city, and phone number, are optional and will not be
required to submit a claim.
Processing Claims. The Settlement Administrator shall review all Claim Forms to
determine their validity and each Claimant’s eligibility, and shall employ reasonable procedures to
screen claims for abuse or fraud. The Settlement Administrator shall determine whether a Claim
Form submitted by a Settlement Class Member is a Valid Claim and shall reject any claim that
does not materially comply with the instructions on the Claim Form, is not submitted by a
Settlement Class Member, or is deemed to be duplicative or fraudulent.
Class Member Data. The Settlement Administrator shall act in compliance with the Joint
Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 54), including but not limited to, keeping identities and
contact information of all potential members of the Settlement Class confidential and using them
only for purposes of administering this Settlement.
Settlement Distribution. As provided in paragraph I of the Settlement Agreement, the Net
Settlement Fund shall be defined as the Settlement Fund less (a) the Cy Pres Award, (b) the cost of
settlement notice and administration, (c) any Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Award, (d) any
Service Awards, and (e) any taxes. Class members who submit claims can choose to receive
payment through one of six methods: Venmo, Zelle, PayPal, prepaid digital Mastercard, paper
check, or direct deposit. This broad set of payment methods gives Claimants flexibility to select a
method that will allow them to receive payment while minimizing the possibility of alerting a
potential abuser that they are a member of the class. For example, a prepaid digital Mastercard
can be delivered using only an email address and does not require a deposit into a bank account.
The Court finds that these payment methods adequately account for the safety and privacy
concerns of the Class Members.
Case 3:25-cv-03276-EMC Document 90 Filed 10/16/26 Page 8 of 12

9
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
Allocation. Subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing, the Net
Settlement Fund shall be distributed to Valid Claimants, who will receive payment of their pro
rata share up to $1,250 per Settlement Class Member, as determined by dividing the Net
Settlement Fund by the number of Valid Claims. If the Settlement Administrator determines that
any residual funds remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after the initial distribution of payments
cannot be feasibly distributed in a secondary distribution on a pro rata basis to Settlement Class
Members who submitted a Valid Claim, the remaining funds shall be distributed cy pres to the
National Domestic Violence Hotline, subject to further Court approval.
Furthermore, the Court hereby approves and adopts the following settlement approval
schedule:
Event Deadline
Notice Date 45 days after entry of this order.
Motion for Attorneys’ Fee and Expense
Payment and Service Awards
55 days after entry of this order, and no
later than 21 days before the Exclusion
or Objection Deadline.
Exclusion or Objection Deadline 90 days after entry of this order.
Claim Form Deadline 105 days after entry of this order.
Responses to Objections 111 days after entry of this order.
Final Approval Motion 14 days before the Final Approval
Hearing.
Final Approval Hearing March 4, 2027, or as soon thereafter as
is convenient for the Court.
IV. OPT-OUT AND OBJECTION PROCEDURES
Exclusion from the Settlement Class. Any person falling within the definition of the
Settlement Class may, upon request, exclude themselves from the Settlement Class by “opting
out.” Any person who desires to opt out must submit written notice of such intent via United
States Mail to the designated address established by the Settlement Administrator by the Exclusion
Case 3:25-cv-03276-EMC Document 90 Filed 10/16/26 Page 9 of 12

10
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
Deadline. The written request to opt out must include: (i) the name of the Action; (ii) the person’s
full name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number; (iii) if the Settlement Class
Member’s current mailing address is not a California address, the Settlement Class Member’s
California mailing address(es) used when the Settlement Class Member communicated with the
Hotline from April 11, 2023, through the date of submission of the Request for Exclusion; (iv) a
specific statement of the person’s intention to be excluded from the Settlement; (v) the identity of
the person’s counsel, if represented; (vi) an attestation confirming that the individual satisfies the
eligibility requirements to be a Settlement Class Member and that the information provided is
accurate; and (vii) be personally signed by the individual Settlement Class Member. The
Settlement Administrator will keep the identities and contact information of all potential
Settlement Class Members confidential and use them only for purposes of administering this
Settlement. As stated in the updated Settlement Agreement, class members who request to opt out
will not be contacted absent consent.
Any individual in the Settlement Class who does not submit a valid and timely Request for
Exclusion in the manner described herein shall be deemed to be a Settlement Class Member upon
expiration of the Exclusion Deadline, and shall be bound by all subsequent proceedings, orders,
and judgments applicable to the Settlement Class (including the Final Approval Order and Final
Judgment dismissing the Action).
Objections to the Settlement. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to object to the
fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement, or to Class Counsel’s requested
Attorneys’ Fee and Expense Payment, or any requested Service Awards for the Class
Representatives, must follow the procedures set forth below.
No Settlement Class Member will be heard on such matters unless they have filed, by the
Objection Deadline, an objection, together with any briefs, papers, statements, or other materials
the Settlement Class Member wishes the Court to consider. Any objection must include: (i) a
caption or title that identifies it as an objection to Class Settlement in the Action; (ii) the
Settlement Class Member’s name as well as the Settlement Class Member’s current address, the
Settlement Class Member’s California mailing address(es) used when the Settlement Class
Case 3:25-cv-03276-EMC Document 90 Filed 10/16/26 Page 10 of 12

11
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
Member communicated with the Hotline from April 11, 2023, through the date of submission of
the objection, if the Settlement Class Member’s current mailing address is not a California
address, email address, and telephone number; (iii) all grounds for the objection, with any factual
and legal support for each stated ground; (iv) the identity of any witnesses the Settlement Class
Member may call to testify; (v) copies of any exhibits that the Settlement Class Member intends to
introduce into evidence at the Final Approval Hearing; and (vi) a statement identifying their
counsel if they are represented by counsel. As stated in the updated Settlement Agreement, class
members who object will not be contacted absent consent, except that the Parties will serve any
responses to objections on the objector or the objector’s counsel. If an objector files an objection
without counsel, the Parties will take all reasonable steps to serve their responses on the objector
in a way that preserves his or her privacy.
Objections must be in writing and must be signed by the objector. Objections must (a) be
submitted only to the Court either by mailing them to the Class Action Clerk, United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
CA 94102, or by filing them electronically or in person at any location of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, and (b) be filed or postmarked within forty-
five (45) days after the Notice Date (“Objection Deadline”).
Any Settlement Class Member who fails to object to the Settlement in the manner
prescribed above, or who fails to do so by the Objection Deadline, shall be deemed to have waived
any such objection, shall not be permitted to object to any terms or approval of the Settlement at
the Final Approval Hearing, and shall be precluded from seeking any review of the Settlement or
the terms of the Settlement Agreement by appeal or any other means.
Settlement Class Members cannot both object to and exclude themselves from the
Settlement Agreement. Any Settlement Class Member who attempts to do so will be deemed to
have excluded themselves and will have forfeited the right to object to the Agreement or any of its
terms. In other words, Settlement Class Members who submit a valid and timely Objection but
also submit a valid and timely Request for Exclusion will be deemed to have opted out of the
Settlement and their objection will be void and invalid.
Case 3:25-cv-03276-EMC Document 90 Filed 10/16/26 Page 11 of 12

12
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
V. FINAL APPROVAL AND FAIRNESS HEARING
A hearing for final approval of the Settlement Agreement will be heard on March 4, 2027
at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5 of this Court. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(5),
members of the Settlement Class may object to the terms of the settlement. Members of the
Settlement Class who object to the proposed settlement may appear and present such objections at
the Fairness Hearing in person or by counsel, provided that any objecting Settlement Class
Members submit a written statement containing the name and address of the objecting Settlement
Class Member and the basis of that person’s objections, together with a notice of the intention to
appear, if appropriate, which must be postmarked no later than 45 days from the date on which the
Notices are sent out by the Settlement Administrator. No person shall be heard, and no briefs or
papers shall be received or considered, unless the foregoing documents have been filed and served
as provided in this Order, except as this Court may permit for good cause shown. Class Counsel
shall file a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the final approval of the
Settlement Agreement no later than 14 days before the Final Approval Hearing. The filing shall
detail the effectiveness of the class notice, and the class responses to the notices, including the take
rate of class members.
The Court may approve the Settlement with such modifications as the Parties may agree to,
if appropriate, without further notice to the Settlement Class. The Final Approval Hearing may,
without further notice to the Settlement Class Members (except those who have filed timely and
valid objections and requested to speak at the Final Approval Hearing), be continued or adjourned
by order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2026
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03276-EMC Document 90 Filed 10/16/26 Page 12 of 12