Jeffrey N. Schneider v. Champignon Brands Inc. — Entry #99: MEMORANDUM in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Disbursement of Funds 98 filed by Plaintiff Michael G

Case 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES       Document 99 Filed 11/14/24   Page 1 of 13 Page ID
                                       #:2059


  1 Robert V. Prongay (SBN 270796)

  2
      Casey E. Sadler (SBN 274241)
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
  3   1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
  4   Los Angeles, California 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
  5   Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
  6   Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com
      Email: csadler@glancylaw.com
  7

  8 Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Michael G.
      Quinn and Lead Counsel for the Class
  9

 10                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 11                       CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 12

 13
    JEFFREY N. SCHNEIDER,                       Case No. 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES
    Individually and On Behalf of All
 14 Others Similarly Situated,                  LEAD PLAINTIFF’S
 15
                                                MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
                   Plaintiff,                   SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED
 16                                             MOTION FOR CLASS
 17
            v.                                  DISTRIBUTION ORDER

 18 CHAMPIGNON BRANDS INC.,                     Date:    December 16, 2024
 19 GARETH BIRDSALL, and                        Time:    1:30 p.m.
      MATTHEW FISH,                             Crtm:    10C
 20                                             Judge:   James V. Selna
 21                Defendants.

 22

 23

 24

 25

 26

 27

 28


                 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS DISTRIBUTION ORDER


Case 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES       Document 99 Filed 11/14/24      Page 2 of 13 Page ID
                                       #:2060


  1 I.        PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
  2           Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Michael G. Quinn (“Lead Plaintiff”) on behalf
  3 of himself and the Settlement Class, respectfully submits this memorandum in

  4 support of the Unopposed Motion for Class Distribution Order (the “Motion”). 1 The

  5 proposed plan for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund is set forth in the

  6 accompanying Declaration of Margery Craig Concerning the Results of the Claims

  7 Administration Process (“Craig Decl.” or “Craig Declaration”), submitted on behalf

  8 of the Court-approved Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services (“SCS” or

  9 the “Claims Administrator”). See Craig Decl. ¶¶21(a)-(e).

 10 II.       BACKGROUND
 11           On April 6, 2022, the Parties entered into the Stipulation, the terms of which
 12 established a $1,000,000 Settlement Fund on behalf of the Settlement Class,

 13 consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired Braxia shares on the

 14 OTC Market between March 27, 2020 and February 17, 2021, both dates inclusive.2

 15 On November 4, 2022, the Court entered its Order Preliminarily Approving

 16 Settlement and Providing for Notice (“Preliminary Approval Order”). ECF No. 88.

 17           Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, SCS: (i) either mailed a Postcard
 18 Notice or sent an email containing a direct link to the Notice of (I) Pendency of

 19
      1
          Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms have the meanings set forth
 20 in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (ECF No. 65-1; the “Stipulation”),

 21 or the Craig Declaration.
      2
 22     Excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) persons who suffered no compensable
      losses; and (b) (i) Defendants; (ii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors,
 23   assigns, and members of the immediate families of the Individual Defendants; (iii)
 24   the parents, subsidiaries, assigns, successors, predecessors and affiliates of Braxia;
      (iv) any person who served as an Officer and/or director of Braxia during the
 25   Settlement Class Period; (v) any entity in which any of the foregoing (i)-(iv)
 26   excluded persons have or had a majority ownership interest during the Settlement
      Class Period; (c) any trust of which any Individual Defendant is the grantor or
 27   settlor or which is for the benefit of any Individual Defendant and/or member(s) of
 28   his or her immediate family; and (d) Defendants’ liability insurance carriers.

                  MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS DISTRIBUTION ORDER
                                                 1


Case 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES    Document 99 Filed 11/14/24      Page 3 of 13 Page ID
                                    #:2061


  1 Class Action, Certification of the Settlement Class and Proposed Settlement; (II)

  2 Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and

  3 Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, (the “Notice”) and Proof of Claim Form

  4 (“Claim Form”) to 37,481 potential Settlement Class Members; (ii) published the

  5 Summary Notice electronically over Globe Newswire (a national newswire service);

  6 (iii) established a case-specific webpage on its website for the Settlement

  7 (www.strategicclaims.net/Braxia/) dedicated to this Settlement; and (iv) set up a

  8 toll-free helpline.   See Craig Decl., ¶5; see also ECF No. 89-4, ¶10 (regarding
  9 publication of the Summary Notice). The Settlement Website and helpline enabled

 10 Settlement Class Members to obtain information about the Settlement, including

 11 deadlines for requesting exclusion, objecting, and filing Claims, as well as provided

 12 access to important documents relevant to the Settlement, including the Stipulation,

 13 Notice, and Claim Form. See Settlement Website.

 14        On February 2, 2023, the Court entered its Order Approving Plan of
 15 Allocation of Net Settlement Fund. ECF No. 95. On March 2, 2023, the Court

 16 entered the Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement. Among other things, the

 17 Order granted final approval of the Settlement, and approved the Plan of Allocation.

 18 ECF No. 97.

 19        Lead Counsel now requests that the Court authorize the distribution of the Net
 20 Settlement Fund (after payment of the Claims Administrator’s expenses as discussed

 21 below, and payment of, or reserve for, taxes, tax preparation fees and escrow fees)

 22 to Authorized Claimants. See Stipulation, ¶27 (“Lead Counsel will apply to the

 23 Court, on notice to Defendants’ Counsel, for a Class Distribution Order: (a)

 24 approving the Claims Administrator’s administrative determinations concerning the

 25 acceptance and rejection of the Claims submitted; (b) approving payment of any

 26 administration fees and expenses associated with the administration of the

 27 Settlement from the Escrow Account; and (c) if the Effective Date has occurred,

 28

               MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS DISTRIBUTION ORDER
                                              2


Case 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES    Document 99 Filed 11/14/24       Page 4 of 13 Page ID
                                    #:2062


  1 directing payment of the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants from the

  2 Escrow Account.”).

  3 III.   CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION
  4        Pursuant to the Court-approved Notice, all Settlement Class Members
  5 wishing to participate in the Settlement were required to submit Claim Forms by

  6 mail or online, postmarked by, or received, no later than March 30, 2023. See ECF

  7 No. 89-4, Ex. B (Notice) at p. 3. The Claims Administrator received and reviewed

  8 all submitted Claims and, to the extent that a Claim was deficient, the Claims

  9 Administrator notified the Claimant of the deficiency and advised the Claimant as to

 10 possible ways to cure the deficiency. See Craig Decl., ¶¶8-15, 18-19.

 11        Of the 1,094 Claim Forms received by the Claims Administrator, 917 were
 12 paper Claim Forms or Claims submitted through the Settlement Website. Id., ¶18.

 13 The remaining 177 Claims were filed electronically (“Electronic Claims”).

 14 Electronic Claims are typically banks, brokers, nominees, and other third-party filers

 15 that file Claims on behalf of numerous Claimants (“E-Claim Filers”). Id. ¶18 & n.3.

 16 Because E-Claim Filers submit a high volume of Claims on behalf of multiple

 17 Claimants, the Claims Administrator provides E-Claim Filers with the opportunity

 18 to submit a master claim form and mail a computer disc or submit an electronic file

 19 containing all the transactions of the Claimants on whose behalf the E-Claim Filer is

 20 submitting a Claim—rather than providing reams of paper requiring manual data

 21 entry. Id. at n.3. This process is designed to expedite the claims process.

 22        If a Claim was deficient or defective, the Claims Administrator sent a
 23 Deficiency Notice to the Claimant, a sample of which is attached as Exhibit A to the

 24 Craig Declaration.     Id., ¶¶12-13, Ex. A.     The Deficiency Notice advised the
 25 Claimant that he, she, or it had twenty (20) days from the date of the Deficiency

 26 Notice to submit additional information and/or documentary evidence to cure the

 27 Claim, otherwise the Claims Administrator would recommend the Claim for

 28 rejection. Id., ¶12. Of the 917 paper and online Claims, the Claims Administrator

               MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS DISTRIBUTION ORDER
                                               3


Case 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES     Document 99 Filed 11/14/24      Page 5 of 13 Page ID
                                     #:2063


  1 sent Deficiency Notices for 128 Claims (or approximately 14%).              Id., ¶13.
  2 Approximately 7 of the 177 Electronic Claims (or approximately 4%) were

  3 incomplete or had one or more defects or conditions of ineligibility. The 7 deficient

  4 Electronic Claims were filed by one unique nominee. SCS sent a Deficiency Notice

  5 to the filer informing them of the 7 Electronic Claims that SCS determined to be

  6 defective. Id.

  7        The Claims Administrator worked diligently with Claimants to resolve
  8 deficiencies where possible. Ultimately, as detailed in the Craig Declaration, after

  9 the deficiency process was complete, the Claims Administrator determined that 193

 10 Claims are acceptable and should receive a distribution. This number includes 170

 11 timely and valid claims, and 23 Late But Otherwise Eligible Claims (addressed in

 12 Section IV below). Craig Decl., ¶¶19.a. & Exs. C-1, C-2.

 13        The Claims Administrator also determined that 901 Claims are not eligible
 14 and should be rejected for the following reasons: (i) 397 are Claims with shares

 15 purchased on a stock market other than the OTC market; (ii) 311 are Claims with

 16 no Recognized Claim; (iii) 102 are Claims with inadequate documentation; (iv) 79

 17 are Claims with shares purchased outside of Settlement Class Period; (v) nine are

 18 Claims with shares not purchased or otherwise acquired, but that were received or

 19 granted by gift, inheritance, or operation of law; (vi) one claim involves securities

 20 other than Braxia common stock; (vii) one Claim is a duplicate claim; and (viii) one

 21 Claim sold shares short. Id., ¶¶19.b. & c.; and Exs. D & E.

 22        In sum, of the 1,094 Claim Forms submitted to SCS, 193 Claims are being
 23 recommended for acceptance, and 901 are ineligible and being recommended for

 24 rejection.

 25 IV.    LATE BUT OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE CLAIMS
 26        The Claims Administrator continued to receive Claims after the March 30,
 27 2023, claims filing deadline.    There must, however, be a final cut-off date after
 28 which no more Claims may be accepted so that a proportional distribution of the Net

                 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS DISTRIBUTION ORDER
                                              4


Case 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES    Document 99 Filed 11/14/24      Page 6 of 13 Page ID
                                    #:2064


  1 Settlement Fund may take place. See In re Gypsum Antitrust Cases, 565 F.2d 1123,

  2 1127 (9th Cir. 1977) (“There is no question that in the distribution of a large class

  3 settlement fund, ‘a cutoff date is essential and at some point the matter must be

  4 terminated.’”) (citation omitted); In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prods. Liab. Litig.,

  5 246 F.3d 315, 329 (3d Cir. 2001). Acceptance of additional Claims received during

  6 the finalization of the administration process and the preparation of this Motion

  7 would necessarily require a delay in the distribution.      Accordingly, the Claims
  8 Administrator imposed a cut-off date of August 30, 2024 . Craig Decl., ¶21.e.

  9        Of the 193 properly documented valid claims, 23 were received or
 10 postmarked after the March 30, 2023            deadline, but before the Claim’s
 11 Administrator’s imposed cut-off date of August 30, 2024 (“Late But Otherwise

 12 Eligible Claims”). Craig Decl., ¶19.a. Id., Ex. C-2. These 23 Late But Otherwise

 13 Eligible Claims have been recommended for payment. Id. at 19.a. Lead Counsel

 14 and the Claims Administrator believe that when the equities are balanced, it would

 15 be unfair to prevent an otherwise valid Claim from participating in the distribution

 16 of the Net Settlement Fund solely because it was submitted after the deadline to

 17 submit Proofs of Claim, but while the Claims were still being processed. See In re

 18 Gypsum, 565 F.2d at 1128 (district court has discretion to grant late claims); In re

 19 Toyota Motor Corp. Sec. Litig., 2014 WL 12586787, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014)

 20 (accepting “Late but Otherwise Eligible Claims”); see also In re “Agent Orange”

 21 Prod. Liab. Litig., 689 F. Supp. 1250, 1261-63 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (court permitting

 22 the qualifying late claimants and opt-out claimants to participate in the settlement

 23 distribution because “[t]he cost to the fund of admitting late claimants and

 24 readmitting the opt-out claimants to the class action should be relatively small. No

 25 significant administrative costs need be incurred to allow the late claims and opt-out

 26 claims”).   Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that this Court approve Lead
 27 Counsel’s recommendation and permit the Claims Administrator to include the Late

 28

                MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS DISTRIBUTION ORDER
                                              5


Case 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES     Document 99 Filed 11/14/24      Page 7 of 13 Page ID
                                     #:2065


  1 But Otherwise Eligible Claims in the Distribution Plan. See Craig Decl., 19.a., and

  2 Ex. C-2.

  3        Additionally, it is respectfully requested that the Court enter an Order
  4 directing that no new Proofs of Claim may be accepted after August 30, 2024, and

  5 no further adjustments to submitted Proofs of Claim may be made for any reason

  6 after September 24, 2024. See Craig Decl., ¶¶20.e. “Drawing a line is essential to

  7 achieve certainty and finality in such a large class action.” Hartman v. Powell, No.

  8 00-5356, 2001 WL 410461, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 15, 2001); see also In re Citigroup

  9 Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 09-MD-2070 (SHS), 2014 WL 7399039, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.

 10 29, 2014) (quoting In re Gypsum, 565 F.2d at 1127).

 11 V.     THE COURT SHOULD REJECT THE ONE DISPUTED CLAIM
 12        One Claimant (claim number 782) disputes SCS’s determination of
 13 ineligibility and has requested Court review of the rejection of its Claim for having

 14 no Recognized Claim under the Court-approved Plan of Allocation.            See Craig
 15 Decl., ¶19.c.i., Ex. G; see also ECF No. 95 (Order Approving Plan of Allocation of

 16 Net Settlement Fund). As set forth in the Craig Declaration, the Claimant seeking

 17 Court review had an overall market gain of $82.68 on the Claimant’s transactions in

 18 Braxia common stock. See Craig Decl., ¶19.c.i. (showing calculations under the

 19 Plan of Allocation resulted in an overall market gain). Under the Plan of Allocation,

 20 which was set forth in the Notice, “[t]o the extent a Claimant had a market gain with

 21 respect to his, her, or its overall transactions in Braxia shares during the Settlement

 22 Class Period, the value of the Claimant’s Recognized Claim shall be zero.” ECF

 23 No. 89-4, Ex. B at ¶61.       Numerous courts have approved plans of allocation
 24 including market gain (or netting) provisions. See, e.g., In re Cendant Corp. Sec.

 25 Litig., 454 F.3d 235, 246-47 (3d Cir. 2006) (upholding application of a “netting

 26 provision” providing that “all profits shall be subtracted from all losses on all

 27 transactions of CUC and Cendant publicly-traded securities during the class period

 28 to determine the net claim of each class member. If a class member made a net

               MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS DISTRIBUTION ORDER
                                               6


Case 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES     Document 99 Filed 11/14/24       Page 8 of 13 Page ID
                                     #:2066


  1 profit, the value of his, her or its claim shall be zero.”); In re Citigroup Inc. Sec.

  2 Litig., 2014 WL 7399039, at *2-4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2014) (overruling objection

  3 based on objector's “aggregate gain” from class period transactions where plan of

  4 allocation provided: “[t]o the extent an Authorized Claimant had an aggregate gain

  5 from his, her or its transactions in Citigroup common stock during the Class Period,

  6 the value of his, her or its total Recognized Loss will be zero.”).

  7        Accordingly, the Court should affirm SCS’s determination that the Claim
  8 should be rejected.

  9 VI.    DISTRIBUTION OF NET SETTLEMENT FUND
 10        Consistent with the terms of the Plan of Allocation and with the Court’s
 11 approval, the Claims Administrator will conduct an initial distribution of the Net

 12 Settlement Fund to all Claimants on a pro rata basis whose distribution payments

 13 calculates to $10.00 or more (the “Initial Distribution”). See Craig Decl., ¶21.a.i-vi.

 14 Based on the substantial experience of the Claims Administrator and Lead Counsel

 15 in similar distributions, it can be expected that a certain number of the payments to

 16 be distributed to Settlement Class Members who filed valid Claims will not be

 17 cashed, deposited, or negotiated promptly. To encourage Authorized Claimants to

 18 promptly cash, deposit, or negotiate their distributions and to avoid or reduce future

 19 expenses relating to unpaid distributions, the Claims Administrator and Lead

 20 Counsel propose that all the distribution checks bear a notation “CASH

 21 PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION 180 DAYS AFTER

 22 ISSUE DATE.” Id., ¶21.a.v.

 23        The Claims Administrator will make reasonable and diligent efforts to
 24 encourage Authorized Claimants who are entitled to participate in the distribution of

 25 the Net Settlement Fund to cash their distribution. However, if after nine (9) months

 26 any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund, by reason of uncashed checks or

 27 otherwise, the Claims Administrator will conduct a second distribution (the “Second

 28 Distribution”) if Lead Counsel, in consultation with the Claims Administrator,

               MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS DISTRIBUTION ORDER
                                                7


Case 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES    Document 99 Filed 11/14/24       Page 9 of 13 Page ID
                                    #:2067


  1 determines that it is cost-effective to do so.      Id., ¶21.b.   During the Second
  2 Distribution, any amounts remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after the Initial

  3 Distribution, after payment of Notice and Administration Expenses (including the

  4 estimated costs of such Second Distribution), Taxes, and any escrow fees, will be

  5 redistributed to all Authorized Claimants in the Initial Distribution who cashed their

  6 distribution checks and would receive at least $10.00 from the Second Distribution.

  7 Id.    Following the Second Distribution, additional redistributions will occur
  8 following the same process of the Second Distribution until no funds remain in the

  9 Net Settlement Fund or until Lead Counsel, in consultation with the Claims

 10 Administrator, determines that additional distributions are no longer economically

 11 feasible. Id., ¶21.c.

 12        Finally, if any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund after payment of any
 13 further Notice and Administration Costs and Taxes, the remaining balance shall be

 14 contributed to the Public Justice Foundation, a non-sectarian, not-for-profit

 15 organization dedicated to, among other things, investor education and advocacy.

 16 Craig Decl., ¶21.d.; see Declaration of Sharon M. McGowan of the Public Justice

 17 Foundation, ¶¶2-10; see also id., ¶¶11-12 (cases in which the Public Justice

 18 Foundation received court approval as the cy pres beneficiary). The proposed Class

 19 Distribution Order filed concurrently herewith confirms the Settlement’s provisions

 20 for such redistribution of any residue of the Net Settlement Fund.

 21 VII. RELEASE OF CLAIMS

 22        In order to allow the full and final distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, it
 23 is necessary to bar any further claims against the Net Settlement Fund beyond the

 24 amounts allocated to Authorized Claimants, and to provide that all persons involved

 25 in the review, verification, calculation, tabulation, or any other aspect of the

 26 processing of the Claims submitted herein, or otherwise involved in the

 27 administration or taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund, be

 28 released and discharged from any and all claims arising out of such involvement.

               MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS DISTRIBUTION ORDER
                                               8


Case 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES    Document 99 Filed 11/14/24     Page 10 of 13 Page ID
                                    #:2068


   1        Accordingly, Lead Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (a) release
   2 and discharge all persons involved in the review, verification, calculation,

   3 tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of the Claims submitted in

   4 connection with the Settlement, or who are otherwise involved in the administration

   5 or taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund, from any and all

   6 claims arising out of that involvement; and (b) bar all Settlement Class Members

   7 and other Claimants, whether or not they receive payment from the Net Settlement

   8 Fund, from making any further claims against the Net Settlement Fund, Lead

   9 Plaintiff, Lead Counsel, Plaintiff’s Counsel, the Claims Administrator, the Escrow

  10 Agent or any other agent retained by Lead Plaintiff or Lead Counsel in connection

  11 with the administration or taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement

  12 Fund, or any other person released under the Settlement beyond the amounts

  13 allocated to them pursuant to the terms of the Class Distribution Order, provided

  14 that such released persons acted in accordance with the Stipulation, the Judgment,

  15 and the Class Distribution Order.

  16        Courts have repeatedly approved similar provisions in connection with the
  17 distribution of settlement proceeds. See, e.g., Wilson v. LSB Indus., Inc., 2020 WL

  18 5628039, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2020) (“All persons involved in the review,

  19 verification, calculation, tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of the

  20 claims submitted herein, or otherwise involved in the administration or taxation of

  21 the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund, are released and discharged from

  22 any and all claims arising out of such involvement, and all Settlement Class

  23 Members, whether or not they are to receive payment from the Net Settlement Fund,

  24 are barred from making any further claim against the Net Settlement Fund or the

  25 released persons beyond the amount allocated to them pursuant to this Order.”); see

  26 also In re Nuvelo, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2012 WL 12920613, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 16,

  27 2012); In re Toyota Motor Corp. Sec. Litig., 2014 WL 12586787, at *3 (C.D. Cal.

  28 Aug. 4, 2014); In re Medicis Pharm. Corp. Sec. Litig., 2013 WL 12149720, at *2

                MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS DISTRIBUTION ORDER
                                              9


Case 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES        Document 99 Filed 11/14/24       Page 11 of 13 Page ID
                                        #:2069


   1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 8, 2013).

   2 VIII. THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE PAYMENT OF
               ADMINISTRATION RELATED FEES AND EXPENSES
   3
               The cost of the administration of the Settlement through October 21, 2024,
   4
       plus the cost of the Initial Distribution totals $104,230.58. Craig Decl., ¶24. To
   5
       date, the Claims Administrator has received payment of $98,980.58. Id. The
   6
       estimate to conduct the Initial Distribution plus the 2024 tax work which will be
   7
       reserved prior to the Initial Distribution, is $5,250. Id. Therefore, Lead Counsel
   8
       respectfully requests that the Court authorize payment to the Claims Administrator
   9
       from the Settlement Fund of $5,250.3 Id.
  10
       IX.     RECORDS RETENTION AND DESTRUCTION
  11
               Lead Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order that: (a) in no less
  12
       than one (1) year after the Second Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, if that
  13
       occurs, or, if there is no Second Distribution, two years after the Initial Distribution,
  14
       the Claims Administrator may destroy the paper copies of the Claims and all
  15
       supporting documentation; and (b) in no less than one (1) year after all funds have
  16
       been distributed, the Claims Administrator may destroy the electronic copies of the
  17
       Claims and all supporting documentation. Id., ¶22.
  18
       X.      CONCLUSION
  19
               For the above reasons, Lead Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Motion be
  20
       granted.
  21

  22

  23

  24

  25

  26
       3
           If the anticipated fees and expenses to conduct the Initial Distribution are greater
  27 than the actual cost to conduct the distribution, the excess will be returned to the

  28 Settlement Fund. Craig Decl., ¶24.

                   MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS DISTRIBUTION ORDER
                                                   10


Case 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES   Document 99 Filed 11/14/24   Page 12 of 13 Page ID
                                   #:2070


   1 DATED: November 14, 2024            GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
   2
                                         By: /s/ Casey E. Sadler
   3                                     Robert V. Prongay
                                         Casey E. Sadler
   4
                                         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
   5                                     Los Angeles, California 90067
                                         Telephone: (310) 201-9150
   6
                                         Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
   7                                     csadler@glancylaw.com
   8
                                         Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Michael G. Quinn
   9                                     and Lead Counsel for the Class
  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  21

  22

  23

  24

  25

  26

  27

  28

               MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS DISTRIBUTION ORDER
                                            11


Case 2:21-cv-03120-JVS-KES      Document 99 Filed 11/14/24      Page 13 of 13 Page ID
                                      #:2071


   1               PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC POSTING
   2        I, the undersigned, say:
   3        I am not a party to the above case and am over eighteen years old. On
   4 Noember 14, 2024, I served true and correct copies of the foregoing document, by

   5 posting the document electronically to the ECF website of the United States District

   6 Court for the Central District of California, for receipt electronically by the parties

   7 listed on the Court’s Service List.

   8        I affirm under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
   9 America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 14, 2024, at

  10 Los Angeles, California.

  11                                         /s/ Casey E. Sadler
  12
                                              Casey E. Sadler

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  21

  22

  23

  24

  25

  26

  27

  28