Naclerio v. DocGo Inc. — Entry #116: REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 110 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses., 108 MOTION for Settlement for Final Approval and Approval of Plan of…
Case: Naclerio v. DocGo Inc. nysd · 1:23-cv-09476
filed October 27, 2023
What this document is
Docket entry #116 · filed March 17, 2026
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 110 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses., 108 MOTION for Settlement for Final Approval and Approval of Plan of Allocation. . Document filed by Genesee County Employees' Retirement System. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix (Index of Exhibits), # 2 Exhibit A (In re XL Fleet), # 3 Exhibit B (In re Wells Fargo)).(Wood, Christopher) (Entered: 03/17/2026)
Who is involved
- Andre Oberholzer
- Anthony Capone
- DocGo Inc.
- Genesee County Employees' Retirement System
- Joe Naclerio
- Lee Bienstock
- Norman Rosenberg
- Stan Vashovsky
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- CleanSpark: its name “CleanSpark, Inc.” appears in a filing in this case.
….........................5, 7 Bishins v. CleanSpark, Inc., 2023 WL 112558 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2023)…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved October 25, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
4 page(s), 5,834 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 1:23-cv-09476-KPF Document 116-3 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT B
Case
Case1:23-cv-09476-KPF
1:20-cv-04494-JLR-SN
Document
Document
116-3
205 Filed 03/17/26
09/08/23 Page
Page12ofof34
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 1:20-cv-04494-JLR-SN
ORDER APPROVING
PLAN OF ALLOCATION OF NET SETTLEMENT FUND
This matter came on for hearing on September 8, 2023 (the “Settlement Hearing”) on Lead
Plaintiffs’ motion to approve the proposed plan of allocation (“Plan of Allocation”) of the Net
Settlement Fund created under the Settlement in the above-captioned class action (the “Action”).
The Court having considered all matters submitted to it at the Settlement Hearing and otherwise;
it appearing that: (i) the Notice of the Settlement Hearing (which included a summary of the
Settlement as well as the full text of the proposed Plan of Allocation) (the “Notice”) was mailed
to all Settlement Class Members who or which could be identified with reasonable effort
substantially in the form approved by the Court and (ii) a summary notice of the hearing
substantially in the form approved by the Court was published in The Wall Street Journal and
Investor’s Business Daily and released over PR Newswire pursuant to the specifications of the
Court; and the Court having considered and determined the fairness and reasonableness of the
proposed Plan of Allocation; and, for the reasons set forth on the record during the Settlement
Hearing,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. This Order approving the proposed Plan of Allocation incorporates by reference the
definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated May 8, 2023 (Doc. 178-1), and
Case
Case1:23-cv-09476-KPF
1:20-cv-04494-JLR-SN
Document
Document
116-3
205 Filed 03/17/26
09/08/23 Page
Page23ofof34
as amended on August 31, 2023 (the “Stipulation”) and all terms not otherwise defined herein shall
have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation.
2. The Court has jurisdiction to enter this Order approving the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and over the subject matter of the Action and all Parties to the Action, including all
Settlement Class Members.
3. Notice of Lead Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of the proposed Plan of Allocation
was given to all Settlement Class Members who or which could be identified with reasonable
effort. The form and method of notifying the Settlement Class of the motion for approval of the
proposed Plan of Allocation satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4, as amended; constituted the best
notice practicable under the circumstances; and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons
and entities entitled thereto.
4. Copies of the Notice, which included the Plan of Allocation, were mailed to over
1,835,000 potential Settlement Class Members and nominees, and no objections to the Plan of
Allocation have been received.
5. The Court hereby finds and concludes that the formula for the calculation of the
claims of Claimants as set forth in the Plan of Allocation mailed to Settlement Class Members
provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement
Fund among Settlement Class Members with due consideration having been given to
administrative convenience and necessity.
2
Case
Case1:23-cv-09476-KPF
1:20-cv-04494-JLR-SN
Document
Document
116-3
205 Filed 03/17/26
09/08/23 Page
Page34ofof34
6. The Court hereby finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation is, in all respects,
fair and reasonable to the Settlement Class. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves the Plan of
Allocation proposed by Lead Plaintiffs.
7. Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Order approving the Plan of Allocation
shall in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment.
8. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Order, and immediate entry by
the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed.
SO ORDERED this __8_____
th September ___ 2023.
day of ___________
________________________________________
The Honorable Jennifer L. Rochon
United States District Judge
3
