Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 26

Rachel E. Kaufman (CA Bar No. 259353) 1 [email protected] 2 Avi R. Kaufman (Pro hac vice) [email protected] 3 KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street 4 Miami, FL 33127 5 Telephone: (305) 469-5881

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Izor and all others similarly situated (Additional counsel appearing on signature page) 7

8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 ) Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG 12 PAUL IZOR, individually and on behalf of all ) others similarly situated, ) PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION, 13 ) MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF Plaintiff, ) CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, 14 ) RESPONSE TO OBJECTION, AND 15 v. ) INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF ) LAW 16 ABACUS DATA SYSTEMS INC., a ) California corporation, ) Hearing Date: December 17, 2020 17 ) Hearing Time: 2:00 p.m. th 18 Defendant. ) Courtroom: 2 – 4 Floor ) Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 19 )

20 21 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF 22 RECORD: 23 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 17, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter 24 as this matter may be heard in Courtroom 2 – 4th Floor of the United States District Court for the 25 Northern District of California, Oakland Division, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 26 94612, before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., Plaintiff Paul Izor will and hereby does 27

28 1 Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 26

1 move the Court, by and through Class Counsel, for entry of an order granting final approval of 2 the class action settlement set forth in the Parties’ Settlement Agreement, certifying the Settlement 3 Class for settlement purposes, approving the Notice to the Settlement Class, and denying the one 4 objection to the settlement, which was filed by a non-class member.1 This Motion is based on and 5 supported by this Notice of Motion, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the 6 Declaration of Avi R. Kaufman, the Declaration of the Settlement Administrator, all pleadings, 7 records and papers on file, and such other matters that may be presented to the Court. 8 Date: December 1, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 9 By: s/ Rachel E. Kaufman 10 Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. 11 Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff Paul Izor 13 and the Settlement Class 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 1 The Class Action Settlement Agreement, filed with the Court as docket entry number 69-1 on June 17, 2020, and Amendment 1 to Class Action Settlement Agreement, filed with the Court as 26 docket entry number 72-1 on August 6, 2020 (jointly referred to herein as the “Agreement” or “Settlement Agreement”), are attached as Exhibit 1. All capitalized terms used herein have the 27 same definitions as those defined in the Agreement. 28 2 Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 26

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 3 II. BACKGROUND ...... 2 4 III. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ...... 5 5 IV. FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROPRIATE ...... 6 6 a. The Settlement is Entitled to a Presumption of Fairness, and Is Otherwise Fair, 7 Reasonable, and Adequate ...... 7 8 9 i. The Strength of Plaintiff’s Case Compared to the Risks of Further Litigation 10 Supports Final Approval ...... 8 11 ii. The Risks of Maintaining Class Action Status Through Trial Support Final 12 Approval ...... 9 13 iii. The Monetary and Injunctive Relief Provided by the Settlement Support Final 14 Approval ...... 9 15 16 iv. Discovery Has Advanced Far Enough to Allow the Parties to Responsibly 17 Resolve the Case ...... 10

18 v. Class Counsel’s Experience and Views of the Settlement Support Final Approval 19 ...... 11 20 vi. The Reaction of the Settlement Class Members Supports Final Approval ...... 12 21 22 b. Notice Was the Best Practicable and Was Reasonably Calculated to Inform the 23 Settlement Class of its Rights ...... 15

24 c. The Settlement Class Should Be Finally Certified ...... 16 25 V. CONCLUSION ...... 19 26 27

28 i Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 4 of 26

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Cases 3 Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al., No. 19-631 ...... 4, 9 4 Couser v. Comenity Bank, 125 F. Supp. 3d 1034 (S.D. Cal. 2015) ...... 8 5 Creasy v. Charter Communs., Inc., No. 20-1199, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177798 (E.D. La. Sep. 6 28, 2020) ...... 4, 9 7 Estrada v. iYogi, Inc., No. 2:13–01989 WBS CKD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137299 (E.D. Cal. 8 Oct. 6, 2015) ...... 10 9 Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511 ...... 4, 9 10 Franklin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 14cv2349-MMA (BGS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13696 11 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2016) ...... 10 12 Goodwin v. Winn Mgmt. Grp. LLC, No. 115CV00606DADEPG, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117133 13 (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2017) ...... 7 14 Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992)...... 17 15 Hart v. BHH, LLC, No. 15cv4804, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173634 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 22, 2020) .. 15 16 In re Cap. One Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., 80 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Ill. 2015)...... 8 17 In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig., 309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...... 12 18 In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) ...... 7 19 In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2008) ...... 6 20 In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ...... 9 21 In re Toys R Us-Delaware, Inc.--Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., 295 22 F.R.D. 438 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ...... 7 23 Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020) ...... 14 24 Kron v. Grand Bahama Cruise Line, LLC, 328 F.R.D. 694 (S.D. Fla. 2018) ...... 19 25 Kuck v. Berkey Photo, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 75 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) ...... 12 26 Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1978) ...... 18 27

28 ii Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 5 of 26

1 Manouchehri v. Styles for Less, Inc., No. 14cv2521 NLS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80038 (S.D. 2 Cal. June 20, 2016) ...... 10 3 Morales v. Stevco, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-00704 AWI JLT, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130604 (E.D. Cal. 4 Nov. 10, 2011) ...... 9, 10 5 Moshogiannis v. Sec. Consultants Grp., Inc., No. 5:10-cv-05971 EJD, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6 16287 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012)...... 10 7 Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) ...... 15 8 Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ...... 8, 12, 13 9 Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Com., 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ...... 8 10 Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ...... 7 11 Satchell v. Fed. Express Corp., No. C03-2659 SI, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99066 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12 13, 2007) ...... 7 13 Somogyi v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., No. 17-6546 (RMB/JS), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194035 14 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2020) ...... 14 15 Torres v. Mercer Canyons, Inc., 835 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) ...... 18 16 Twigg v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 153 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 1998) ...... 16 17 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) ...... 17 18 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) ...... 6 19 Wannemacher v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, No. SA CV 12-2016 FMO (ANx), 2014 U.S. 20 Dist. LEXIS 199156 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2014) ...... 8 21 Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 02cv2003 IEG (AJB), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19674 22 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2010)...... 11 23 Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ...... 17

24 Statutes 25 Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 ...... 10, 19

26 Other Authorities 27 Manual for Compl. Lit. § 21.312 ...... 15, 16 28 iii Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 6 of 26

1 Newberg on Class Actions § 11.41 (4th ed. 2002) ...... 6 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 iv Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 7 of 26

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 As explained in Plaintiff’s preliminary approval papers and further herein, the Settlement 4 Agreement provides exceptional relief to the Settlement Class. The Settlement Agreement 5 establishes a non-reversionary Settlement Fund in the amount of $1,950,000 for the benefit of the 6 Settlement Class, which will also be used to pay the settlement costs. Based on the current claims 7 rate, this equates to nearly $4002 per claiming Settlement Class Member; a truly exceptional 8 result. Declaration of Avi Kaufman ¶ 2, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. In addition to this excellent 9 monetary result, Defendant has agreed to broad injunctive relief aimed at curbing future 10 Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations directed towards Settlement Class Members and 11 the public at large. Specifically, Defendant has agreed to stop making TCPA violative calls and 12 to take actions to prevent TCPA violations by its vendors and any subvendors. Id. 13 No Settlement Class Members have opted out, and no Settlement Class Members have 14 objected. (In fact, as discussed below, the only objection to the Settlement is from a serial objector 15 who is not a Settlement Class Member, and whose objection is unsupported and otherwise 16 baseless.) In addition, due to the robust notice efforts, as of December 1, 2020, 2,793 Settlement 17 Class Members have submitted claims—a claims rate of more than 15%. If the Court grants the 18 19 relief requested in this Motion, each claiming Settlement Class Member will receive nearly $400. 20 Ultimately, the Settlement will bring an end to what has otherwise been, and likely would 21 continue to be, hard-fought litigation centered on unsettled legal questions, provides Class 22 Members with outstanding monetary and injunctive relief, and should be finally approved. 23 Therefore, for the reasons set forth in this memorandum and in the papers previously 24 submitted in support of approval, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant final approval 25

26 2 This estimate is based on a pro rata distribution after deduction of the anticipated settlement administration costs, requested service award, and requested attorneys’ fees of one-third of the 27 Settlement Fund. 28 1 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 8 of 26

1 of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement by: (1) finally certifying the Settlement Class; (2) approving 2 the proposed Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate for the certified Settlement 3 Class; (3) determining that adequate notice was provided to the Settlement Class; and (4) 4 approving payment to the claims administrator in an amount not to exceed $105,000. The Parties 5 request entry of the agreed proposed order filed herewith, attached as Exhibit 3 to this Motion, at 6 or after the fairness hearing. 7 II. BACKGROUND 8 On February 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Complaint against Abacus Data Systems Inc. in 9 this action asserting claims under the TCPA’s autodialer and do not call list provisions. [D.E. 1]. 10 On April 22, 2019, Abacus filed a Motion to Dismiss and to Stay the Proceedings pending FCC 11 Guidance concerning what constitutes an autodialer under the TCPA [D.E. 21]. On May 6, 2019, 12 Plaintiff responded in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and to Stay [D.E. 23]. On May 13, 13 2019, Abacus replied in support of the Motion to Dismiss and to Stay [D.E. 24]. On August 5, 14 2019, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and to Stay [D.E. 37]. 15 On August 8, 2019, the Court held an initial case management conference and thereafter 16 entered a scheduling order. Defendant answered the Complaint on August 19, 2019 [D.E. 45]. 17 Thereafter, the parties engaged in extensive discovery involving, among other things, 18 19 multiple, extended meet and confers through which the parties were able to resolve their discovery 20 disputes without the need for motion practice. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 4. More specifically, as part of 21 discovery, each party served, responded to, and produced documents responsive to two waves of 22 written discovery requests. Id. Plaintiff also engaged in extensive third party discovery, resulting 23 in, among other things, the filing of a subpoena enforcement action against Trumpia in the Central 24 District of California and Trumpia’s production of thousands of pages of documents and 25 communications relevant to this action, including the text messaging logs used to identify 26 Settlement Class Members. Id. In connection with designating an expert witness concerning 27 whether Trumpia’s text messaging platform constitutes an autodialer under the TCPA, Plaintiff

28 2 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 9 of 26

1 and Plaintiff’s expert also inspected non-party Trumpia’s text messaging platform. Id. 2 Additionally, Plaintiff’s, Plaintiff’s expert’s, and various Defendant employees’ depositions were 3 scheduled to occur within days of when the parties ultimately reached an agreement in principle 4 to settle this action (and, given the logistical challenges presented by Covid-19, Plaintiff, 5 Plaintiff’s expert, and Plaintiff’s counsel had been prepared for those depositions, including 6 through an exhaustive review of all of the discovery up to that point). Id. 7 On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff served his expert witness disclosures, including the expert 8 report of telecommunications systems expert Randall A. Snyder, centering on whether the system 9 used to send text messages to Settlement Class Members was an autodialer under the TCPA. 10 Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 5. 11 Around that time, the Parties began settlement negotiations and scheduled mediation. 12 Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 6. Based on the Parties’ analyses of the relative strengths and weaknesses of 13 their cases through formal and informal discovery, on February 19, 2020, the Parties engaged in 14 a full-day, contentious mediation in Los Angeles with JAMS mediator Bruce A. Friedman. Id. 15 The mediation did not result in settlement, but did, among other things, involve the initial 16 exchange of information concerning Abacus’s financial condition. Id. 17 During nearly four months of additional adversarial litigation, including, among other 18 19 things, briefing Defendant’s Motion to Stay pending a ruling from the Supreme Court concerning 20 the constitutionality of the TCPA [D.E. 50, 58, 60, 62, 63], which the Court denied on April 13, 21 2020 [D.E. 64], the parties engaged in further settlement negotiations with the assistance of Mr. 22 Friedman, ultimately reaching an agreement in principle as to a class wide resolution culminating 23 in the Settlement Agreement. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 7. 24 The Parties recognize and acknowledge the expense and length of continued proceedings 25 that would be necessary to prosecute the litigation against Defendant through trial and potentially 26 appeals. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 8. Plaintiff’s counsel has taken into account the strength of 27 Defendant’s defenses, the limitations of Defendant’s financial ability to pay a potential final

28 3 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 10 of 26

1 judgment, difficulties in obtaining class certification and proving liability, the uncertain outcome 2 and risk of the litigation, especially in complex actions such as this one, the inherent delays in 3 such litigation, and particularly the risk that a change in the law, including a ruling by the Supreme 4 Court or this Court concerning the constitutionality of the TCPA or an interpretation from the 5 Supreme Court or Federal Communications Commission regarding what constitutes an autodialer 6 under the TCPA, could nullify Plaintiff’s claims. Id.; see Barr v. American Association of 7 Political Consultants, Inc., et al., No. 19-631; Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511; Creasy v. 8 Charter Communs., Inc., No. 20-1199, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177798 (E.D. La. Sep. 28, 2020). 9 Plaintiff’s counsel believes that the proposed Settlement confers substantial and immediate 10 monetary and non-monetary benefits upon the Settlement Class whereas continued and protracted 11 litigation, even if successful, may have ultimately delivered none. Id. Based on their evaluation 12 of all these factors, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel determined that the Settlement is in the best 13 interests of Plaintiff and the Settlement Class. Id. 14 The Settlement Agreement establishes a Settlement Class of: 15

16 All regular users or subscribers of numbers assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, radio common carrier service, or any service for 17 which the called party is charged for the call to which a text message was transmitted by Trumpia on behalf of Defendant within four years of February 26, 2019. 18 Agreement at ¶ 1.1.36. 19 The Settlement Fund will be distributed pro rata to claiming Settlement Class Members. 20 After deducting the estimated notice and administration costs, Class Counsel fees and expenses, 21 22 and a Service Award from the Settlement Fund, each Claimant will receive a pro rata distribution 23 of nearly $400. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 9. 24 In addition, Defendant has agreed to broad injunctive relief that will prevent future TCPA 25 violations aimed at Settlement Class Members and the public at large. Specifically, Defendant 26 has agreed: (1) to not send any marketing text messages for a period of 2 years to any Settlement 27 Class Member without an independent investigation into the existence of consent to text message

28 4 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 11 of 26

1 a particular class member; (2) to obtain a subscription to the National Do Not Call Registry; (3) 2 to perform a quarterly spot check of 10 telemarketing calls for TCPA consent and will any vendors 3 that do not deliver such consent; and (4) to will require their vendors making telemarketing calls 4 to identify any sub-vendors they use and get prior written approval to use them. 5 The Settlement confers substantial and immediate benefits upon the Settlement Class 6 whereas continued and protracted litigation may have ultimately delivered none given the risks 7 presented by Defendant’s defenses, the uncertainties of contested litigation, and the everchanging 8 TCPA landscape, including district courts’ ongoing scrutiny of the constitutionality of the TCPA, 9 and the Supreme Court’s and FCC’s pending decisions regarding the TCPA’s autodialer 10 provision. See Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 10. 11 III. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 12 The Court entered its Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement on August 13 24, 2020. [D.E. 73]. Both before and after that date, the Parties have worked diligently with each 14 other and the Claims Administrator to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Id. at ¶ 15 12; Declaration of Settlement Administrator attached as Exhibit 4. 16 Specifically, on August 31, 2020, in accordance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 17 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715 (“CAFA“), the Settlement Administrator sent the CAFA Notice to the 18 19 United States Attorney General and all State Attorneys General. Settlement Administrator Decl. 20 at ¶ 14. 21 On June 25, 2020, counsel provided the Settlement Administrator with one electronic file 22 containing potential Settlement Class Member records. Id. at ¶ 15. This file contained a list of 23 18,719 unique phone numbers for Settlement Class Members. Id. 24 On September 16, 2020 and September 17, 2020, Epiq launched the Settlement website 25 and the toll-free Settlement information hotline. Id. at ¶¶ 25, 27. Since that time, there have been 26 more than 34,000 unique visits to the Settlement website and more than 100 calls to the toll-free 27 Settlement information hotline. Id. at ¶¶ 26, 28.

28 5 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 12 of 26

1 On September 18, 2020, Epiq mailed Summary Notices via First Class USPS Mail to 2 16,820 identifiable, potential Settlement Class Members with a mailing address. Id. at ¶¶ 16-17. 3 From September 18, 2020 through October 17, 2020, Epiq published banner notices 4 Google Display Network websites and on Facebook. Id. at ¶¶ 21-24. 5 In total, including efforts to remail Summary Notices that were initially returned as 6 undeliverable, Epiq has delivered direct, mailed Summary Notices to 86.9% of Settlement Class 7 Members. Id. at ¶ 20. In addition, Epiq’s published banner ads generated approximately 112.7 8 million impressions nationwide, extending the Notice Plan’s total reach to approximately 90.7% 9 of Settlement Class Members. Id. at ¶¶ 21, 24. And in response to these robust notice efforts, 10 2,793 Settlement Class Members have submitted claims, no potential Settlement Class Members 11 have opted out, and no Settlement Class Members have filed or otherwise submitted objections 12 regarding the Settlement. Id. at ¶¶ 29-30.3 13 IV. FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROPRIATE 14 As a matter of public policy, courts favor settlement of class actions for their earlier 15 resolution of complex claims and issues, which promotes the efficient use of judicial and private 16 resources. E.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 116 (2d Cir. 2005). The 17 policy favoring settlement is especially relevant in class actions in which the inherent costs, 18 19 delays, and risks of continued litigation might otherwise overwhelm any potential benefit the class 20 could hope to obtain through a judgment. See, e.g., id.; In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 21 1101 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Newberg on Class Actions § 11.41 (4th ed. 2002) (citing cases). 22 In the Ninth Circuit, to assess the fairness of a class-action settlement there are eight 23 factors a court may consider: (1) the strength of the plaintiff’s case; (2) the risk, expense, 24 complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status 25 3 Although Settlement Class Members were required to file objections with the Court, in an 26 abundance of caution, both Epiq and Class Counsel reviewed all correspondence received by Epiq concerning the Settlement to confirm that no objections were sent to Epiq. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 27 13. 28 6 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 13 of 26

1 throughout the trial; (4) the relief provided by the settlement; (5) the extent of discovery 2 completed and the stage of the proceedings at which a settlement was reached; (6) plaintiff’s 3 counsel’s views of the case in light of their experience; (7) the presence of a governmental 4 participant; and (8) the reaction of the absent members to the proposed settlement. In re Online 5 DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 944 (9th Cir. 2015). In assessing a settlement, a court 6 is asked to exercise its discretion only “to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that 7 the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating 8 parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all 9 concerned.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 965 (9th Cir. 2009). An evaluation of 10 the relevant factors for determining whether the Parties’ Settlement here is fair, reasonable, and 11 adequate, overwhelmingly supports the granting of final approval. 12 a. The Settlement is Entitled to a Presumption of Fairness, 13 and Is Otherwise Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate 14 “The assistance of an experienced mediator in the settlement process confirms that [a] 15 settlement is non-collusive.” Satchell v. Fed. Express Corp., No. C03-2659 SI, 2007 U.S. Dist. 16 LEXIS 99066, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007); see Goodwin v. Winn Mgmt. Grp. LLC, No. 17 115CV00606DADEPG, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117133, at *20 (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2017) (finding 18 that a settlement was entitled to a presumption of fairness because it resulted from a full day of 19 mediation with a mediator); In re Toys R Us-Delaware, Inc.--Fair & Accurate Credit 20 Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., 295 F.R.D. 438, 450 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (citing Rodriguez, 563 21 F.3d at 965) (“We put a good deal of stock in the product of an arms-length, non-collusive, 22 negotiated resolution.”). 23 The Settlement in this action is the result of protracted settlement negotiations with the 24 assistance of JAMS mediator Bruce Friedman for four months following a full-day, contentious 25 mediation in Los Angeles with Mr. Friedman, who has extensive experience assisting parties in 26 resolving TCPA class actions. Kaufman Decl. at ¶¶ 6, 7; see In re Cap. One Tel. Consumer Prot. 27

28 7 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 14 of 26

1 Act Litig., 80 F. Supp. 3d 781, 809 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (finally approving class action settlement with 2 estimated payout of $39.66 per claiming class member). The Settlement is therefore entitled to a 3 presumption of fairness. But, even without a presumption of fairness, an objective evaluation of 4 the relevant Ninth Circuit factors for determining whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and 5 adequate confirms that it is overwhelmingly so. See Wannemacher v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., 6 LLC, No. SA CV 12-2016 FMO (ANx), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199156, at *16 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7 22, 2014) (discussing that a court should “objectively” evaluate the “strengths and weaknesses 8 inherent in the litigation”) (internal citation omitted). 9 i. The Strength of Plaintiff’s Case Compared to the 10 Risks of Further Litigation Supports Final Approval 11 As the Ninth Circuit has instructed, in assessing the probability and likelihood of success, 12 “the district court’s determination is nothing more than an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross 13 approximations, and rough justice.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Com., 688 F.2d 615, 625 14 (9th Cir. 1982). There is “no particular formula” to be applied, but the court may presume the 15 parties’ counsel and the mediator arrived at a reasonable range of settlement by considering 16 plaintiff’s likelihood of recovery. Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 965. Moreover, “[i]t has been held 17 proper to take the bird in hand instead of a prospective flock in the bush.” Couser v. Comenity 18 Bank, 125 F. Supp. 3d 1034, 1041 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. 19 DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 526 (C.D. Cal. 2004)). 20 Plaintiff’s counsel has taken into account the strength of Defendant’s defenses, the 21 limitations of Defendant’s financial ability to pay a potential final judgment, difficulties in 22 obtaining class certification and proving liability, the uncertain outcome and risk of the litigation, 23 especially in complex actions such as this one, the inherent delays in such litigation, and 24 particularly the risk that a change in the law, including a ruling by the Supreme Court or this 25 Court concerning the constitutionality of the TCPA or an interpretation from the Supreme Court 26 or Federal Communications Commission regarding what constitutes an autodialer under the 27

28 8 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 15 of 26

1 TCPA, could nullify Plaintiff’s claims. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 8; see Barr v. American Association 2 of Political Consultants, Inc., et al., No. 19-631; Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511; Creasy 3 v. Charter Communs., Inc., No. 20-1199, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177798 (E.D. La. Sep. 28, 2020). 4 These risks must be balanced against the extraordinary anticipated Settlement result: if 5 the Settlement is finally approved, claiming Settlement Class Members will each receive nearly 6 $400 in immediate monetary relief. Additionally, as a direct result of this litigation, Defendant 7 has agreed to substantive injunctive relief. This factor therefore weighs in favor of final approval. 8 Morales v. Stevco, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-00704 AWI JLT, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130604, at *27 9 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2011) (immediate recovery for the class is “preferable to lengthy and 10 expensive litigation with uncertain results”) (internal citation omitted). 11 ii. The Risks of Maintaining Class Action Status 12 Through Trial Support Final Approval 13 The risk that a class may not be certified also favors final approval. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 14 8; see Wannemacher, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199156, at *18 (finding that where motion for class 15 certification had not been filed the risk that the class would not be certified weighed in favor of 16 approving the settlement). If litigation had continued, Defendant would have argued that consent 17 and other defenses could not be determined on a class basis, and that, therefore, class certification 18 would be inappropriate. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 8. The risks inherent in proceeding with class 19 litigation weigh strongly in favor of final approval. 20 iii. The Monetary and Injunctive Relief Provided by the 21 Settlement Support Final Approval 22 In evaluating the range of possible approval, “courts primarily consider plaintiffs’ 23 expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement offer.” In re Tableware Antitrust 24 Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “Thus, when analyzing the amount offered 25 in settlement, the Court should examine ‘the complete package taken as a whole,’ and the amount 26 27

28 9 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 16 of 26

1 is ‘not to be judged against a hypothetical or speculative measure of what might have been 2 achieved by the negotiators.’” Morales, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130604, at *28. 3 The non-reversionary $1,950,000 settlement amount provides much more than “a fraction 4 of the potential recovery” to Settlement Class Members. Class members that submit claims will 5 each receive a monetary payout of nearly $400. This is an excellent result that far exceeds the 6 payout in many other court approved TCPA settlements. See Manouchehri v. Styles for Less, Inc., 7 No. 14cv2521 NLS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80038 (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) (preliminarily 8 approving settlement where class members could choose to receive $10 cash or $15 voucher); 9 Franklin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 14cv2349-MMA (BGS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13696 10 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2016) (approving settlement where class members received $71.16); Estrada 11 v. iYogi, Inc., No. 2:13–01989 WBS CKD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137299 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 12 2015) (preliminarily approving TCPA settlement where class members estimated to receive $40). 13 And in addition to providing significant monetary relief for the Settlement Class’s benefit, 14 Defendant has agreed to implement policies and procedures to prevent against telemarketing in 15 violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 2. 16 What the Settlement Class releases through the settlement is related to what the Class 17 gains. In this case, the release from Settlement Class Members to Defendant is narrowly tailored 18 19 to claims arising from the text messages at issue. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 11. 20 The monetary and remedial relief here are a fair and meaningful outcome in Settlement 21 Class Members’ favor, and places the Settlement well within the range of approval. 22 iv. Discovery Has Advanced Far Enough to Allow the Parties to Responsibly Resolve the Case 23 Discovery has advanced far enough to allow parties to responsibly resolve a case where 24 the parties have exchanged meaningful evidence and information relating to the key issues in the 25 case prior to settlement negotiations. E.g., Moshogiannis v. Sec. Consultants Grp., Inc., No. 5:10- 26 cv-05971 EJD, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16287, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012) (holding that 27

28 10 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 17 of 26

1 settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate where, inter alia, “the parties conducted a 2 significant amount of informal discovery…”); Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 3 02cv2003 IEG (AJB), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19674, at *16 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2010) (“Plaintiff 4 ha[d] sufficient information from investigation and from informal discovery to have a clear view 5 of the strengths and weaknesses of the case and to support the settlement.”). 6 Here, discovery was nearly completed when the Parties reached Settlement. Kaufman 7 Decl. at ¶ 16. Plaintiff served and received responses and responsive documents to two sets of 8 written discovery to Defendant, responded to two sets of written discovery from Defendant, 9 issued and received responses to third party discovery, prepared for depositions, and engaged in 10 the informal exchange of additional information concerning Defendant, including financial 11 information, before finalizing the proposed Settlement. Id. From the start, Class Counsel 12 conducted a thorough investigation and analysis of Plaintiff’s claims, including by engaging and 13 obtaining testimony from a telecommunications systems expert, and engaged in extensive 14 discovery. Id. Class Counsel’s understanding of the key issues driving the litigation, including 15 the likelihood of class certification, the strength of Defendant’s consent and other defenses, and 16 the ever-shifting TCPA law landscape, prepared them for well-informed settlement negotiations. 17 Id. As a result, the Settlement here was the result of extensive, arm’s-length negotiations between 18 19 experienced attorneys who are familiar with class action litigation and with the legal and factual 20 issues of this Action. Id. 21 v. Class Counsel’s Experience and Views of the Settlement Support Final Approval 22 Settlement recommendations of competent counsel are accorded “great weight” by the 23 Courts since “[p]arties represented by competent counsel are better positioned than courts to 24 produce a settlement that fairly reflects each party’s expected outcome in the litigation.” Nat’l 25 Rural Telecomms. Coop., 221 F.R.D. at 528 (citations omitted). “The Court’s function on this 26 application is well known it is not to reopen and enter into negotiations with the litigants in the 27

28 11 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 18 of 26

1 hope of improving the settlement to meet an objector’s particular objections; nor is the Court 2 called upon to substitute its business judgment for that of the parties who worked out a settlement 3 after hard, arm’s-length, good-faith bargaining.” Kuck v. Berkey Photo, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 75, 78 4 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). 5 The Settlement here is the result of extensive, arm’s-length negotiations between 6 experienced attorneys who are familiar with class action litigation and with the legal and factual 7 issues of this Action. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 16. Furthermore, Class Counsel are particularly 8 experienced in the litigation, certification, and settlement of nationwide TCPA class action cases. 9 Id. at ¶¶ 17-21. Class Counsel zealously represented Plaintiff and the Settlement Class members’ 10 interests throughout the litigation, and continue to do so. Id. at ¶ 22. Class Counsel are confident 11 in the strength of Plaintiff’s case, but are also pragmatic in their awareness of the various defenses 12 available to Defendant, and the risks inherent in obtaining class certification, and prevailing at 13 trial and on appeal. Id. at ¶ 23. The success of Plaintiff’s claims turn on questions that would arise 14 at class certification, summary judgment, trial, during an inevitable post-judgment appeal, and in 15 proceedings before the Supreme Court and FCC to which Plaintiff is not a party. Id. Under the 16 circumstances, Class Counsel appropriately determined that the benefits of the Settlement 17 outweigh the risks of continued litigation. Id. And the absence of any opt outs and objections from 18 19 Settlement Class Members, strongly support Class Counsel’s conclusion. 20 vi. The Reaction of the Settlement Class Members Supports Final Approval 21 A low number of opt-outs and objections in comparison to class size is typically a factor 22 that supports settlement approval. In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig., 309 F.R.D. 573, 589 (N.D. 23 Cal. 2015) (granting final approval where 47,336 class members submitted claims, only 57 timely 24 opted out, and six filed objections); see Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop., 221 F.R.D. at 529 (“It is 25 established that the absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement 26 27

28 12 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 19 of 26

1 raises a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class action settlement are favorable to 2 the class members.”). 3 Here, the Settlement Class unanimously endorses the Settlement. No Settlement Class 4 Members have opted out or objected. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 13. In fact, the only objection to the 5 settlement was filed by a serial objector who is not a class member and who was disbarred by the 6 State of California, in part, as a result of misleading a court regarding an objection to a class action 7 settlement. Id.; Settlement Administrator Decl. at ¶ 29. More important, the objection lacks merit 8 in all respects. 9 First, the Notice Plan and notices approved by the Court were the best practicable notice 10 and informed Settlement Class Members of their rights. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 24. The notices 11 advised Settlement Class members of the substantive terms of the Settlement, their options for 12 remaining part of the Settlement Class, for objecting to the Settlement or to Class Counsel’s 13 Attorneys’ fee application and request for Service Award, for opting-out of the Settlement, and 14 to obtain additional information about the Settlement. Id. The notices also advised Settlement 15 Class Members that they could file claims by mail or on the Settlement website (to avoid any 16 post-marking or postal service related issues)4 and of the amount estimated to be paid to each 17 Claimant (which was ultimately an accurate estimate). Id. In total, notice reached more than 90% 18 19 of the Settlement Class, advised them of, and provided them ample time to exercise, their rights, 20 and resulted in nearly 3,000 claims (a claims rate of over 15%). Settlement Administrator Decl. 21 at ¶¶ 16, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 34. 22 Second, the requested attorneys’ fees are appropriate. As explained in detail in Class 23 Counsel’s Motion for Service Award and Class Counsel Fees and Costs, the request reflects the 24 risk and exceptional monetary and injunctive relief corresponding to this case, is justified in light 25 4 Oddly, although the objector asserts that he “could not comply with the” Settlement related 26 deadlines and that his “objection is dated earlier,” although not a Settlement Class Member, the objector did in fact serve his objection prior to the objection deadline on October 27, 2020, the 27 date of his objection. 28 13 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 20 of 26

1 of Class Counsel’s significant experience in TCPA litigation specifically, which was essential to 2 achieving the favorable outcome for the Settlement Class, is in line with amounts approved in 3 similar TCPA class action settlements in this Circuit, and results in a lodestar multiplier of less 4 than 1.5 as a result of the advanced stage of the litigation at the time the case was settled. 5 Third, the release is narrowly tailored to the claims that were or could have been asserted 6 in the litigation, and is otherwise intended to comply with the identical factual predicate doctrine. 7 Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 11. 8 Fourth, consistent with Ninth Circuit practice, and this District’s rules, Class Counsel 9 timely filed an application for a service award and for attorneys’ fees and costs. The objector 10 cites Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020), to argue that fee awards and 11 service awards “are not lawful pursuant to binding circuit precedent.” However, Johnson is not 12 binding circuit precedent and does not hold that fee awards are unlawful. Moreover, to the extent 13 that it holds that service awards are inappropriate, Johnson, a first of its kind decision, is an outlier 14 and inconsistent with current jurisprudence, as explained by Judge Martin’s dissent: 15

16 The majority’s decision to do away with incentive awards for class representatives in class actions takes our court out of the mainstream. To date, none of our sister 17 circuit courts have imposed a rule prohibiting incentive awards…But upon deciding to undertake this issue here, the majority skips any analysis about our modern 18 authority to approve these awards. It goes straight to decisions from the 1880s that 19 do not reflect the current views of the Supreme Court or other circuits. The majority never properly addresses the main issue before us: whether the incentive award 20 created a conflict between Mr. Johnson and absent class members. I would answer this question by engaging in the fairness analysis called for by our precedent. And 21 that analysis leads me to say the District Court did not abuse its discretion in 22 approving an award of $6,000 to Mr. Johnson.

23 Johnson, 975 F.3d 1244. Indeed, the only reported decisions outside of the Eleventh Circuit that 24 have considered Johnson have rejected applying it to their approval of class settlements. See 25 Somogyi v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., No. 17-6546 (RMB/JS), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194035, at 26 *27 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2020) (Approving a TCPA settlement holding “there is substantial precedent 27

28 14 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 21 of 26

1 from this Circuit supporting approval of incentive payments. Until and unless the Supreme Court 2 or Third Circuit bars incentive awards or payments to class plaintiffs, they will be approved by 3 this Court if appropriate under the circumstances. Here the incentive payments to the class 4 plaintiffs is appropriate given their substantial contribution to the successful settlement of the 5 case.”); Hart v. BHH, LLC, No. 15cv4804, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173634, at *31 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 6 22, 2020) (discussing Johnson and then awarding each class representative $5,000). 7 Moreover, contrary to the objector’s accusations, Plaintiff was not promised money and 8 Class Counsel was not required to request a service award that increased on a sliding scale as the 9 class’s monetary recovery increased. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 29. There is absolutely no basis to 10 conclude otherwise or to find that Plaintiff has any interests inconsistent with the Settlement 11 Class’s interests. Id. Just as there is no basis to conclude that Class Counsel are inadequate or 12 have a conflict of interest with the Settlement Class. To the contrary, Class Counsel have 13 vigorously litigated this action and will continue to vigorously prosecute this matter through 14 completion. Id. at ¶ 22. 15 Accordingly, Settlement Class Members’ reaction to the Settlement weighs strongly in 16 favor of final approval, and the single, groundless objection from a non-Settlement Class Member 17 does not provide a basis for concluding otherwise. 18 19 b. Notice Was the Best Practicable and Was Reasonably Calculated to Inform the Settlement Class of its Rights 20 “Rule 23(e)(1)(B) requires the court to direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class 21 members who would be bound by a proposed settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise 22 regardless of whether the class was certified under Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3).” Manual for 23 Compl. Lit. § 21.312 (internal quotation marks omitted). The best practicable notice is that which 24 is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the 25 pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. 26 Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). To satisfy this standard, “[n]ot only 27

28 15 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 22 of 26

1 must the substantive claims be adequately described but the notice must also contain information 2 reasonably necessary to make a decision to remain a class member and be bound by the final 3 judgment or opt-out of the action.” Twigg v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 153 F.3d 1222, 1227 (11th 4 Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Manual for Compl. Lit. § 21.312 (listing 5 relevant information). 6 The Notice program satisfies these criteria. As approved by the Court, the Notice Program 7 included direct mail notice and publication notice. The notices advised Settlement Class members 8 of the substantive terms of the Settlement, their options for remaining part of the Settlement Class, 9 for objecting to the Settlement or to Class Counsel’s Attorneys’ fee application and request for 10 Service Award, and for opting-out of the Settlement, and how to obtain additional information 11 about the Settlement. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 23. In total, notice reached more than 90% of the 12 Settlement Class. Settlement Administrator Decl. at ¶ 34. As a result, the notice to the Settlement 13 Class was the best practicable notice, because it was intended to, and in fact did, inform the 14 Settlement Class of its rights. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 23. 15 c. The Settlement Class Should Be Finally Certified 16 This Court conditionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. [D.E. 17 73]. For all the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s preliminary approval briefing, incorporated by 18 19 reference herein, and the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court should finally certify the 20 Settlement Class as it continues to meet all the requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the 21 requirements of Rule 23(b). 22 Specifically, the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a) is satisfied because the Settlement 23 Class consists of approximately 18,719 persons identifiable from the text messaging logs 24 produced by Trumpia in discovery, and joinder of all Settlement Class Members is impracticable. 25 Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 25; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). 26 “Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members ‘have suffered 27 the same injury,’” and the plaintiff’s common contention “must be of such a nature that it is

28 16 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 23 of 26

1 capable of classwide resolution – which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve 2 an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart Stores, 3 Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011) (citation omitted). Here, the commonality requirement 4 is readily satisfied. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 26. There are multiple questions of law and fact that are 5 common to the Settlement Class that would generate common answers. Id. These questions are 6 directly guided by Defendant’s defenses, including whether the Trumpia text messaging platform 7 used to text message all Settlement Class Members constitutes an autodialer under the TCPA; 8 whether Defendant is vicariously liable for text messages sent by Trumpia to all Settlement Class 9 Members; whether these text message recipients have Article III standing based on receiving one 10 or more substantively similar marketing text message; whether Defendant had consent to send the 11 text messages based on the existence of a prior business relationship between it and text message 12 recipients; and whether Defendant is entitled to rely on a safe harbor defense as to all Settlement 13 Class Members based on its general business practices, including specifically its alleged 14 substantial compliance with the TCPA. Id. 15 For similar reasons, Plaintiff’s claims are reasonably coextensive with those of the absent 16 class members, such that the Rule 23(a)(3) typicality requirement is satisfied. The typicality 17 requirement ensures that “the interest of the named representative aligns with the interests of the 18 19 class.” Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010). Typicality 20 is present when a defendant acts uniformly toward the class members, where that uniform conduct 21 results in injury to the class members, and where the named plaintiff suffers a similar injury to 22 that of the class members as a result. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 23 1992). Plaintiff is typical of the Settlement Class Members because he received unsolicited text 24 messages on behalf of Defendant from Trumpia, is a Settlement Class Member, and will benefit 25 in the same way as other Settlement Class Members from the relief provided by the Settlement. 26 Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 27. 27

28 17 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 24 of 26

1 Plaintiff and Class Counsel also satisfy the adequacy of representation requirement. 2 Adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4) requires (1) a plaintiff’s attorney to be qualified, experienced, and 3 generally able to conduct the proposed litigation; and (2) a plaintiff to not have interests 4 antagonistic to those of the class. Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582 F.2d 507, 512 (9th 5 Cir. 1978). Plaintiff’s interests are coextensive with, not antagonistic to, the interests of the 6 Settlement Class, because Plaintiff is a Settlement Class Member and has the same interest as 7 other Settlement Class Members in the relief afforded by the Settlement, and the absent 8 Settlement Class Members have no diverging interests. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 28. Further, Plaintiff 9 and the Settlement Class are represented by qualified and competent Class Counsel who have 10 extensive experience and expertise prosecuting complex class actions, and TCPA class actions, 11 in particular. Id. at ¶¶ 16-20; see Declaration of Stefan Coleman [D.E. 77-4] at ¶¶ 3-5. Class 12 Counsel have vigorously litigated this action and will continue to vigorously prosecute this matter 13 through completion. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 22. 14 Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement tests “whether proposed classes are 15 sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Torres v. Mercer Canyons, Inc., 16 835 F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal citation omitted). The Settlement Class readily 17 satisfies the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement because the questions common to all 18 Settlement Class Members – including whether Trumpia’s platform used to text message all 19 Settlement Class Members constitutes an autodialer under the TCPA; whether Defendant is 20 vicariously liable for text messages sent by Trumpia to all Settlement Class Members; whether 21 these text message recipients have Article III standing based on receiving one or more 22 substantively similar marketing text message; whether Defendant had consent to send the text 23 messages based on the existence of a prior business relationship between it and text message 24 recipients; and whether Defendant is entitled to rely on a safe harbor defense as to all Settlement 25 Class Members based on its general business practices, including specifically its alleged 26 27

28 18 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 25 of 26

1 substantial compliance with the TCPA – substantially outweigh any possible issues that are 2 individual to each Settlement Class Member. Kaufman Decl. at ¶ 29. 3 Relatedly, the Settlement Class satisfies Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirement because 4 “common issues of law and fact predominate over any individualized issues” and “the large 5 number of claims, along with the relatively small statutory damages, the desirability of 6 adjudicating these claims consistently, and the probability that individual members would not 7 have a great interest in controlling the prosecution of these claims, all indicate that a class action 8 would be the superior method of adjudicating” Plaintiff’s “claims under the TCPA.” See id.; Kron 9 v. Grand Bahama Cruise Line, LLC, 328 F.R.D. 694, 702 (S.D. Fla. 2018). 10 For these reasons, the Court should certify the Settlement Class. 11 V. CONCLUSION 12 The Settlement securing $1,950,000 in immediate monetary relief represents an excellent 13 result for the Settlement Class given the risks and obstacles in this Action. Moreover, Defendant 14 has agreed to broad injunctive relief to prevent against telemarketing in violation of the Telephone 15 Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. The Settlement more than satisfies the fairness and 16 reasonableness standard of Rule 23(e), as well as the class certification requirements of Rules 17 23(a) and (b)(3). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff and Class Counsel respectfully 18 request that this Court (1) grant Final Approval to the Settlement; (2) certify for settlement 19 purposes the Settlement Class; (3) appoint as Class Representative the Plaintiff, Paul Izor; (4) 20 appoint as Class Counsel Avi R. Kaufman and Rachel E. Kaufman of Kaufman P.A. and Stefan 21 Coleman of Law Offices of Stefan Coleman P.A.; (5) deny the one objection to the settlement 22 filed by a non-Settlement Class Member; and (6) enter Final Judgment. 23 24 Date: December 1, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 25 By: s/ Rachel E. Kaufman 26 Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. (CA Bar No. 259353) Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. 27 KAUFMAN P.A. 28 19 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79 Filed 12/01/20 Page 26 of 26

400 NW 26th Street 1 Miami, FL 33127 2 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 Email: [email protected] 3 Email: [email protected]

4 Stefan L. Coleman, Esq. 5 LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 11 Broadway Suite 615 6 New York, NY 10004-1490 Telephone: 887-333-9427 7 Fax: 888-498-8946 8 Email: [email protected]

9 David S. Ratner, Esq. (SBN 316267) DAVID RATNER LAW FIRM, LLP 10 33 Julianne Court 11 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Telephone: (917) 900-2868 12 Fax: (925) 891-3818 Email: [email protected] 13

14 Attorneys for Plaintiff Paul Izor and the Settlement Class 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 16 17 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 1, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing

18 document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, and it is being served this day on all 19 counsel of record via transmission of Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. 20

21 /s/ Rachel E. Kaufman 22 Rachel E. Kaufman 23 24 25 26 27

28 20 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 46

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3

4 PAUL IZOR, individually and on behalf of all Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG 5 others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 6 Plaintiff, Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 7 v. Action Filed: February 26, 2019

8 ABACUS DATA SYSTEMS INC., a 9 California corporation,

10 Defendant.

11 This Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”), is made and entered into by and 12 between Representative Plaintiff Paul Izor (“Representative Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and 13 the Settlement Class, and Defendant Abacus Data Systems Inc. (“Defendant”) to settle and 14 compromise this action and settle, resolve, and discharge the Released Claims, as defined below, 15

16 according to the terms and conditions herein.

17 RECITALS

18 WHEREAS, Izor v. Abacus Data Systems Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG, was filed

19 February 26, 2019 and is currently pending before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the 20 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging Defendant violated the 21 Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.; 22 WHEREAS, Representative Plaintiff alleges receiving text messages sent by or on behalf 23 of Defendant between January and February 2019; 24

25 WHEREAS, Representative Plaintiff alleges a claim for violation of 47 U.S.C. §

26 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and a claim for violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) and (d); 27

28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 1 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 46

1 WHEREAS, Defendant denies each and every one of Representative Plaintiff’s 2 allegations of unlawful conduct, damages, or other injuries; 3 WHEREAS, based upon the investigation, and evaluation of the facts and law relating to 4 the matters alleged in the pleadings, motion practice to date, plus the risks and uncertainties of 5 continued litigation and all factors bearing on the merits of settlement, Representative Plaintiff 6

7 and Class Counsel have agreed to settle the claims asserted in the Litigation pursuant to the

8 provisions of this Settlement;

9 WHEREAS, in an effort to facilitate a resolution of the Litigation and mediate settlement 10 discussions, the Settling Parties participated in a full day mediation in Los Angeles with Bruce A. 11 Friedman of JAMS, Inc. followed by months of protracted settlement negotiations facilitated by 12 Mr. Friedman; 13

14 WHEREAS, the Parties understand, acknowledge and agree that the execution of this

15 Agreement constitutes the settlement and compromise of disputed claims. This Agreement is

16 inadmissible as evidence except to enforce the terms of the Agreement and is not an admission of

17 wrongdoing or liability on the part of any Party to this Agreement; 18 NOW THEREFORE, subject to the Final Approval Order of the Court as required herein 19 and applicable law and rules, the Settling Parties hereby agree, in consideration of the mutual 20 promises and covenants contained herein, that all Released Claims against any Released Parties 21

22 shall be settled, compromised and forever released upon the following terms and conditions.

23 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT

24 1. DEFINITIONS 25 1.1 As used herein, the following terms have the meanings set forth below. 26 1.1.1 “Appeal” means a request for appellate review of any order or judgment of 27 the Court entered in this Litigation, including but not limited to appeals as of right, discretionary 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 2 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 46

1 appeals, interlocutory appeals, any order reinstating an appeal, and proceedings involving writs of 2 certiorari and/or any proceedings thereon. 3 1.1.2 “Approved Claim” means a claim submitted by a Settlement Class Member 4 that: (a) is received by the Settlement Administrator or postmarked on or before the Claims 5

6 Deadline; (b) is fully and truthfully completed by a Settlement Class Member with all information

7 requested in the Claim Form, and in accordance with the directions on the Claim Form; (c) is

8 signed by the Settlement Class Member, physically or electronically; and (d) is approved by the 9 Settlement Administrator pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement as a valid claim eligible to 10 receive payment from the Settlement Fund under the Agreement and the Final Approval Order 11 and Judgment. 12 1.1.3 “CAFA Notice” means the notice of this Settlement to the appropriate 13

14 federal and state officials, as provided by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §

15 1715, and as further described in Paragraph 7.4.

16 1.1.4 “Claims Deadline” means the date that is approximately sixty (60) days 17 after the Notice Date. 18 1.1.5 “Claim Form” means the document to be submitted by Claimants seeking 19 payment pursuant to this Settlement, attached as Exhibit A. 20

21 1.1.6 “Claimant” means a Settlement Class Member who submits a Claim Form.

22 1.1.7 “Class Counsel” means Avi R. Kaufman and Rachel E. Kaufman of

23 Kaufman P.A, and Stefan Coleman of the Law Offices of Stefan Coleman P.A.

24 1.1.8 “Court” means the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 25 California. 26 1.1.9 “Complaint” means the operative complaint in this Litigation at the time 27 the Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order. 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 3 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 4 of 46

1 1.1.10 “Defendant” means Abacus Data Systems Inc., as well as their respective 2 past, present, and future officers, directors, shareholders, employees, predecessors, affiliates, 3 parents, subsidiaries, partners, distributors, principals, insurers, administrators, agents, servants, 4 successors, trustees, vendors, subcontractors, alleged co-conspirators, buyers, independent 5

6 contractors, attorneys, representatives, heirs, executors, experts, consultants, and assigns of all of

7 the foregoing persons.

8 1.1.11 “Defense Counsel” means Defendant’s counsel of record in the Litigation, 9 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. 10 1.1.12 “Effective Date” means the first date by which any Judgment entered 11 pursuant to the Agreement becomes Final. 12 1.1.13 “Fee Award” means the amount of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of 13

14 expenses that may be awarded by the Court and that will be paid out of the Settlement Fund.

15 1.1.14 “Final” means one business day following the later of the following events:

16 (i) the expiration of three (3) business days after the time to file a motion to alter or amend a 17 judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) has passed without any such motion having been filed; (ii) 18 the expiration of the time in which to file an Appeal of any judgment entered pursuant to this 19 Agreement has passed without any Appeal having been taken; and (iii) the resolution of any such 20

21 Appeal in a manner that does not reverse or vacate the Judgment and in a manner that permits the

22 consummation of the Settlement substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of this

23 Agreement. Any proceeding or order, or any Appeal pertaining solely to any request or order

24 regarding the Fee Award will not in any way delay or preclude the Judgment from becoming Final. 25 1.1.15 “Final Approval Hearing” means the final hearing, held after the 26 Preliminary Approval Order is issued and Settlement Class Members have been given reasonable 27

28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 4 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 5 of 46

1 notice and an opportunity to object or to exclude themselves from the Settlement, at which the 2 Court will determine whether to finally approve the Settlement and to enter Judgment. 3 1.1.16 “Final Approval Order” means an order, providing for, among other things, 4 final approval of the Settlement. 5

6 1.1.18 “Funding Date” shall mean twenty five (25) days after preliminary approval

7 is granted to this Settlement.

8 1.1.19 “Judgment” means the judgment to be entered by the Court pursuant to the 9 Settlement. 10 1.1.20 “Litigation” means Izor v. Abacus Data Systems Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv- 11 01057-HSG, currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 12 1.1.21 “Mediator” shall mean Bruce A. Friedman of JAMS, Inc. 13

14 1.1.22 “Notice” means a document substantially in the form of Exhibit B hereto,

15 and “Summary Notice” means a document substantially in the form of Exhibit C hereto, to be

16 disseminated in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, informing Persons who fall 17 within the Settlement Class of, among other things, the pendency of the Litigation, the material 18 terms of the proposed Settlement, and their options with respect thereto. 19 1.1.23 “Notice Date” means the last date by which the Notice is first disseminated 20

21 by mail and by email pursuant to the Notice Plan.

22 1.1.24 “Notice Plan” shall mean the proposed plan of disseminating to

23 Settlement Class Members notice of the proposed Settlement and of the Final Approval

24 Hearing, as approved by the Court. 25 1.1.25 “Opt-Out Deadline” means the date that is approximately (60) days after 26 the Notice Date. 27 1.1.26 “Parties” means, collectively, Representative Plaintiff and Defendant. 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 5 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 6 of 46

1 1.1.27 “Person” means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited 2 partnership, association, joint stock company, estate, legal representative, trust, unincorporated 3 association, government or any political subdivision or agency thereof, any business or legal 4 entity, and such individual’s or entity’s spouse, heirs, predecessors, successors, representatives, 5

6 and assignees.

7 1.1.28 “Preliminary Approval Order” means an order, providing for, among other

8 things, preliminary approval of the Settlement and dissemination of the Notice to the Settlement 9 Class according to the Notice Plan. 10 1.1.29 “Released Claims” shall mean any and all claims, liabilities, demands, 11 causes of action, or lawsuits of the Settlement Class Members, whether known or unknown, 12 whether legal, statutory, equitable, or of any other type or form, whether under federal, state, or 13

14 local law (such as any violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 USC § 227, the

15 FCC’s related regulations—including Do Not Call requirements, or unfair or deceptive practices

16 act), and whether brought in an individual, representative, or any other capacity, that were brought 17 in the Litigation or that arise from text messages sent, or attempted to be sent, by or on behalf of 18 Defendant within the four years preceding February 26, 2019. 19 1.1.30 “Released Parties” means Defendant and any past, present, and future 20

21 corporate parent, buyers, subsidiary, or affiliated entities, along with each of their current, former,

22 and future owners, principals, members, partners, officers, directors, shareholders, employees,

23 agents, trustees, administrators, marketers, vendors, contractors, subcontractors, assigns,

24 successors, servants, insurers, representatives, and attorneys. 25 1.1.31 “Releasing Parties” means: (a) Representative Plaintiff, his present, former, 26 and future spouses as well as present, former, and future heirs, executors, trustees, estates, 27 administrators, agents, attorneys, partners, successors in interest, predecessors, and assigns and 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 6 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 7 of 46

1 personal representatives of any of the foregoing; (b) Settlement Class Members who do not timely 2 opt out of the Settlement Class; (c) to the extent that a Settlement Class Member is not an individual, 3 all of its present, former, and future predecessors, successors, trustees, administrators, assigns, 4 parents, subsidiaries, joint ventures, and affiliates, and all employees, agents, representatives, 5

6 consultants, independent contractors, insurers, directors, officers, partners, principals, members,

7 attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, investors, investment bankers, underwriters,

8 shareholders, lenders, and auditors of any of the foregoing Persons; and (d) to the extent the 9 Settlement Class Member is an individual, any present, former, and future spouses, as well as the 10 present, former, and future heirs, executors, trustees, estates, administrators, representatives, 11 agents, attorneys, partners, successors, predecessors, and assigns of each of them, and any other 12 representatives of any of the foregoing Persons. 13

14 1.1.32 “Representative Plaintiff” means Plaintiff Paul Izor.

15 1.1.32 “Service Award” means the amount paid to the Representative Plaintiff for

16 service as the Representative Plaintiff. 17 1.1.33 “Settlement” means the settlement set forth in this Agreement. 18 1.1.34 “Settlement Administration Expenses” means the expenses incurred by the 19 Settlement Administrator in providing notice, processing claims, administering the Settlement, 20

21 and mailing checks for Approved Claims. Settlement Administration Expenses shall be paid

22 exclusively from the Settlement Fund.

23 1.1.35 “Settlement Administrator” means Epiq Systems.

24 1.1.36 “Settlement Class” means all regular users or subscribers of numbers 25 assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, radio 26 common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call to which a 27 text message was transmitted by Trumpia on behalf of Defendant within four years of February 26, 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 7 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 8 of 46

1 2019. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judge presiding over this action (or the 2 Judge or Magistrate presiding over the action through which this matter is presented for settlement) 3 and members of their families; (2) the Defendant, Defendant’s respective subsidiaries, parent 4 companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or their parents have a 5

6 controlling interest and its current or former officers and directors; (3) persons who properly

7 execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the legal representatives,

8 successors or assigns of any such excluded person(s). 9 1.1.37 “Settlement Class Member” means a person who falls within the definition 10 of the Settlement Class and who does not opt out of the Settlement as set forth in Paragraph 10.4. 11 1.1.38 “Settlement Class Period” means within four years of February 26, 2019 12 through the date of preliminary approval. 13

14 1.1.39 “Settlement Class Recovery” means the amount of the Settlement Fund

15 available for distribution to the Settlement Class, after payment of Settlement Administration

16 Expenses, any Fee Award to Class Counsel, and any approved Service Award to the 17 Representative Plaintiff. 18 1.1.40 “Settlement Fund” means a common fund which Defendant will cause to be 19 created of $1,950,000. The common fund will be non-reversionary and represent the maximum 20

21 possible payment (“Maximum Payment”) for all payments for (a) Class Members, (b)

22 administrative expenses, including notice, (c) Representative Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs,

23 and (d) Representative Plaintiff’s incentive award.

24 1.1.41 “Settling Parties” means, collectively, Defendant, Representative Plaintiff, 25 and all Settlement Class Members. 26 1.1.42 “Trumpia” means DoCircle, Inc. dba Trumpia. 27

28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 8 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 9 of 46

1 1.1.43 The plural of any defined term includes the singular, and the singular of 2 any defined term includes the plural. 3 2. DENIAL OF WRONGDOING AND LIABILITY 4 2.1 Defendant denies the material factual allegations and legal claims asserted by 5

6 Representative Plaintiff in the Litigation, including any and all charges of wrongdoing or liability

7 arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts or omissions alleged, or that could have been

8 alleged, in the Litigation. Further, Defendant maintains that it has strong, meritorious defenses to 9 the claims alleged in the Litigation and that it was prepared to vigorously defend all aspects of the 10 Litigation. 11 2.2 Defendant’s Position on Conditional Certification of the Settlement Class. 12 Defendant disputes that a class would be manageable or that common issues predominate over 13

14 individual ones, and denies that a litigation class properly could be certified on the claims asserted

15 in the Litigation. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of

16 further litigation, Defendant does not oppose and hereby agrees to certification of the Settlement 17 Class defined in Paragraph 1.1.36, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 23(b)(3). Certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes will not be deemed a 19 concession that certification of any litigation class in the Litigation is, or was, appropriate, nor 20

21 would Defendant be precluded from challenging class certification in further proceedings in the

22 Litigation or in any other action if the Settlement is not finalized or finally approved. If the

23 Settlement is not finally approved by the Court for any reason whatsoever, the certification of the

24 Settlement Class resulting from this Agreement will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel 25 or preclusion will be asserted in any proceedings involving Defendant. No agreements made by or 26 entered into by Defendant in connection with the Settlement may be used by Plaintiff, any person 27

28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 9 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 10 of 46

1 in the Settlement Class or any other person to establish any of the elements of class certification in 2 any litigated certification proceedings, whether in the Litigation, or any other judicial proceeding. 3 2.3 Admissibility. Additionally, this Agreement, any negotiations or proceedings 4 related to it, the implementation of it, and any papers submitted in support of the motions for 5

6 approval of it (collectively, the “Settlement Proceedings”) are not to be construed as or deemed to

7 be evidence of any admission or concession by any of the Parties regarding liability, damages, or

8 the appropriateness of class treatment, and are not to be offered or received in evidence in any 9 action or proceeding for any purpose whatsoever; provided, however, that this Agreement and the 10 Settlement Proceedings may be presented to the Court in connection with the implementation or 11 enforcement of this Agreement, or as may be necessary or appropriate to further the purposes 12 sought to be achieved by this Agreement. 13

14 3. THE BENEFITS OF SETTLEMENT

15 3.1 Class Counsel and Representative Plaintiff recognize and acknowledge the

16 expense and length of continued proceedings that would be necessary to prosecute the Litigation 17 against Defendant through trial and appeals. Class Counsel also has taken into account the 18 strength of Defendant’s defenses, Defendant’s financial condition, difficulties in proving liability, 19 and the uncertain outcome and risk of the litigation, especially in complex actions such as this 20

21 one, and the inherent delays in such litigation. Class Counsel believes that the proposed

22 Settlement confers substantial benefits upon the Settlement Class. Based on their evaluation of all

23 of these factors, Representative Plaintiff and Class Counsel have determined that the Settlement is

24 in the best interests of Representative Plaintiff and the Settlement Class. 25 4. SETTLEMENT TERMS 26 4.1 Settlement Fund: Defendant will cause to be created a Settlement Fund in the 27 amount of One Million Nine Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,950,000) for the purpose of 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 10 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 11 of 46

1 making all required payments under this Settlement, including payments associated with the 2 CAFA Notice, for Approved Claims, any approved Fee Award, any approved Service Award for 3 Representative Plaintiff, and the costs of reasonable class notice and class administration. The 4 Parties agree Defendant’s maximum monetary obligation under this Agreement shall not exceed 5

6 $1,950,000. Before or on the Funding Date Defendant shall place in a non-interest-bearing

7 escrow account (“Escrow Account”) the full Settlement Fund amount of $1,950,000 pursuant to

8 the instructions of the Settlement Administrator. Upon payment of the full $1,950,000, Defendant 9 and the Released Parties’ payment obligations under this Agreement shall be deemed to have 10 been fully satisfied. 11 4.2 The Settlement Fund shall be a Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) under Section 12 468B of the Internal Revenue Code and 26 C.F.R. § 1.468B-1, established pursuant to the 13

14 Preliminary Approval Order. The Settlement Administrator shall be the Administrator of the

15 QSF.

16 4.3 Defendant further agrees that it (1) will implement policies and procedures to 17 prevent against the sending of text messages without prior express consent to numbers assigned to 18 wireless carriers using an automated telephone dialing system, and (2) will not send any 19 telemarketing text messages to promote its products and/or services in violation of the TCPA. 20

21 4.4 Payment to Settlement Class Members

22 4.4.1 Each Settlement Class Member shall be entitled to submit one claim per

23 telephone number he or she used or subscribed to.

24 4.4.2 Adequate and customary procedures and standards will be used by the 25 Settlement Administrator to prevent the payment of fraudulent claims and to pay only legitimate 26 claims, including, but not limited to, verifying claimed text messages with information provided 27 by the Parties. 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 11 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 12 of 46

1 4.4.3 Payment will be made to Settlement Class Members who timely submit a 2 valid Claim Form by the Claims Deadline after any approved attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, 3 any approved Representative Plaintiff Service Award for Representative Plaintiff, and costs of 4 reasonable class notice and class administration are deducted from the Settlement Fund. 5

6 4.4.4 Each Settlement Class Member who timely submits a valid Claim Form by

7 the Claims Deadline shall be entitled to a single payment in an amount equivalent to his or her

8 pro rata share of the Settlement Fund after any approved Fee Award, any approved Service 9 Award, and Settlement Administration Expenses are deducted. Each Settlement Class Member 10 shall be entitled to receive an amount equal to the Settlement Class Recovery divided by the total 11 number of Approved Claims. 12 4.4.5 Payments will be made directly to the Settlement Class Member by the 13

14 Settlement Administrator.

15 5. REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF SERVICE AWARD

16 5.1 Class Counsel, on behalf of Representative Plaintiff, shall petition the Court for a 17 Representative Plaintiff Service Award. In the event the Court approves the Settlement, but 18 declines to award a Representative Plaintiff service award in the amount requested by Class 19 Counsel, the Settlement will nevertheless be binding on the Parties and all Settlement Class 20

21 Members.

22 5.2 The Service Award, in the amount approved by the Court shall be paid solely out

23 of the Settlement Fund within thirty (30) calendar days of the Effective Date, and shall not

24 increase Defendant’s total financial liability with respect to this Agreement or Settlement. The 25 recipient of the Service Award, if any, shall be responsible for providing a form W-9 to the 26 Settlement Administrator prior to payment. 27

28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 12 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 13 of 46

1 5.3 Defendant shall have no liability to Representative Plaintiff or any other Person 2 arising from any claim regarding payment of any incentive award, so long as Defendant complies 3 with its obligations under this Agreement. 4 6. ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND COSTS 5

6 6.1 Class Counsel shall apply to the Court for attorneys’ fees and documented and

7 reasonable expenses and costs. Class Counsel’s application for fees, expenses, and costs and the

8 request for an incentive award shall be filed no later than thirty-five (35) days prior to the Opt- 9 Out Deadline. Any Fee Award approved by the Court shall be paid solely out of the Settlement 10 Fund and shall not increase Defendant’s total financial liability with respect to this Agreement or 11 Settlement. 12 6.2 In the event the Court approves the Settlement, but declines to award a Fee Award 13

14 in the amount requested by Class Counsel, the Settlement will nevertheless be binding on the

15 Parties and the Settlement Class Members.

16 6.3 Defendant shall have no liability to Class Counsel or any other Person arising from 17 any claim regarding the division of any award of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs between and 18 among Class Counsel or any other counsel who may claim entitlement to any portion of the Fee 19 Award. 20

21 6.4 The Fee Award, if approved by the Court, shall be paid by wire transfer from the

22 Settlement Fund within ten (10) calendar days following the Effective Date, provided that the law

23 firm(s) or attorney(s) being paid has executed a Form W-9 to the Settlement Administrator. The

24 Fee Award shall be paid from the Settlement Fund, and Defendant shall have no additional 25 obligation to pay for attorneys’ fees, costs and/or expenses of any kind. 26 6.5 The Court shall retain jurisdiction of any dispute regarding the Fee Award and any 27 repayment of any amount of the Fee Award. 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 13 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 14 of 46

1 7. ADMINISTRATION AND NOTICE 2 7.1 All costs and expenses of administering the Settlement and providing reasonable 3 Notice in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order shall be paid out of the Settlement 4 Fund, including the cost of CAFA Notice. 5

6 7.2 Responsibilities of Settlement Administrator

7 7.2.1 The Settlement Administrator will facilitate the notice process by assisting

8 the Parties in the implementation of the Notice Plan, as well as CAFA Notice. 9 7.3 Class Settlement Website 10 7.3.1 The Settlement Administrator will create and maintain the Class 11 Settlement Website, to be activated within thirty (30) days of Preliminary Approval. The 12 Settlement Administrator’s responsibilities will also include securing an appropriate URL to be 13

14 agreed upon by the Parties. The Class Settlement Website will contain information about the

15 Settlement and case-related documents such as the Settlement Agreement, the Long-Form Notice

16 in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to Court modification and/or approval, the Claim 17 Form, and the Preliminary Approval Order. Settlement Class Members shall have the option to 18 file a claim electronically using the Class Settlement Website. 19 7.3.2 The Class Settlement Website will terminate (be removed from the 20

21 internet) and no longer be maintained by the Settlement Administrator thirty (30) days after either

22 (a) the Effective Date or (b) the date on which the Settlement Agreement is terminated or

23 otherwise not approved in full, if the Settlement is terminated or otherwise not approved in full.

24 The Settlement Administrator will then transfer ownership of the URL to Defendant. The 25 Settlement Administrator may destroy documents generated in the administration of the 26 Settlement one year after the void date on settlement checks. 27

28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 14 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 15 of 46

1 7.3.3 All costs and expenses related to the Class Settlement Website shall be 2 paid out of the Settlement Fund. 3 7.4 CAFA Notice 4 7.4.1 The Parties agree that the Settlement Administrator shall serve notice of the 5

6 settlement that meets the requirements of CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, on the appropriate federal

7 and state officials no later than 10 days after the filing of this Settlement Agreement with the

8 Court. 9 7.4.2 All costs and expenses related to the CAFA Notice shall be paid out of the 10 Settlement Fund. 11 7.4.3 The Settlement Administrator will file a certification with the Court stating 12 the date(s) on which the CAFA Notices were sent. Each Party will provide the other Parties with 13

14 any substantive responses received in response to any CAFA Notice.

15 7.5 Notice Plan

16 7.5.1 The Notice shall conform to all applicable requirements of the Federal 17 Rules of Civil Procedure, the U.S. Constitution (including the Due Process Clauses), Cal. Civ. 18 Code § 1781, and any other applicable law, and shall otherwise be in the manner and form agreed 19 upon by the Parties and approved by the Court. 20

21 7.5.2 Defendant shall provide the telephone numbers for all Settlement Class

22 Members to the Settlement Administrator within ten (10) calendar days after the Court enters the

23 Preliminary Approval Order.

24 7.5.3 Subject to Court approval, within thirty (30) days after the Court enters the 25 Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator shall send direct notice substantially in 26 the form of the Summary Notice in Exhibit C, as modified and/or approved by the Court, via U.S. 27 Postal Service, to the Settlement Class Members. 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 15 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 16 of 46

1 7.5.4 Subject to Court approval, within thirty (30) days after the Court enters the 2 Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator shall publish a one-time notice of the 3 settlement in a magazine, website, or through targeted social media ads to be agreed upon by the 4 Parties substantially in the form of the Summary Notice in Exhibit C. All costs and expenses 5

6 related to the publication shall be paid out of the Settlement Fund.

7 8. CLAIMS PROCESS

8 8.1 Submission of Claims. Settlement Class Members must timely submit, by mail or 9 online, a valid Claim Form substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A, as modified and/or 10 approved by the Court, by the Claims Deadline. All Claim Forms must be postmarked or 11 submitted to the Settlement Administrator, either in hard copy form or electronically via the 12 Settlement Website, by the Claims Deadline. A valid Claim Form means a Claim Form 13

14 containing all required information and which is signed by the claimant and is timely submitted.

15 Any Claim Form which is not timely submitted shall be denied. In the event a Settlement Class

16 Member submits a Claim Form by the Claims Deadline but the Claim Form is not complete, then 17 the Settlement Administrator shall give such Settlement Class Member a reasonable opportunity 18 to provide any requested missing information. For any Class Member who submits a Claim Form 19 determined by the Settlement Administrator to be incomplete, the Settlement Administrator may 20

21 mail a notice directly to such Class Member, notifying him or her of the missing information and

22 providing him or her with an opportunity to cure (the “Cure Notice”). Class Members must cure

23 incomplete claims on or before the Effective Date.

24 8.2 Claims Processing. The Settlement Administrator shall apply the terms of this 25 Settlement Agreement and the requirements set forth in the Claim Form, and any Claim Form 26 submitted that does not meet the requirements of this Agreement is not eligible to be an Approved 27 Claim. The Settlement Administrator also shall employ reasonable procedures to screen claims 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 16 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 17 of 46

1 for abuse, fraud, or duplication, and shall deny Claim Forms where there is evidence of abuse, 2 fraud, or duplication. The Settlement Administrator’s decisions regarding the Settlement Class 3 Members’ eligibility for a claims payment shall be final. The Parties, the Released Parties, and 4 their respective counsel shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever for the Settlement 5

6 Administrator’s conduct, omissions, or actions.

7 8.3 Payment of Claims. Within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date, or such other

8 date as the Court may set, the Settlement Administrator shall pay from the Settlement Fund all 9 Approved Claims by check made payable to the Settlement Class Member submitting each 10 Approved Claim, and shall mail the checks via first-class mail. 11 8.4 All payments to Settlement Class Members via check will state on the face of the 12 check that the check will expire and become null and void unless cashed within one hundred 13

14 eighty (180) days after the date of issuance. To the extent that any checks to Settlement Class

15 Members expire and become null and void, the Settlement Administrator shall distribute the

16 funds associated with those checks on a pro rata basis to Settlement Class Members who 17 submitted an Approved Claim and who cashed their checks, if doing so is administratively and 18 economically feasible (i.e., those Settlement Class Members would receive a second distribution 19 of more than $5 after costs of administration). Any remaining monies, including to the extent a 20

21 second distribution is not administratively feasible, shall escheat to the applicable state.

22 8.5 No decisions by the Settlement Administrator shall be deemed to constitute a

23 finding, admission, or waiver by Defendant as to any matter of fact, law, or evidence having any

24 collateral effect on any Claim hereunder or in any other proceeding or before any other forum or 25 authority. Further, such decisions shall not be submitted to or admissible in any other proceeding 26 or before any other forum or authority. 27

28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 17 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 18 of 46

1 9. RELEASES 2 9.1 Upon entry of the Judgment, Representative Plaintiff and each Settlement Class 3 Member will be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment will have, fully, finally, and 4 forever released, relinquished, and discharged the Released Parties from all Released Claims 5

6 against the Released Parties.

7 9.2 After entering into this Settlement Agreement, Representative Plaintiff or

8 Settlement Class Members may discover facts other than, different from, or in addition to, those 9 that they know or believe to be true with respect to the Released Claims. Representative Plaintiff 10 and Settlement Class Members expressly waive and fully, finally, and forever settle and release 11 any known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or noncontingent claim, whether or 12 not concealed or hidden, without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such other, 13

14 different, or additional facts.

15 9.3 With respect to the Released Claims, all Settlement Class Members expressly

16 waive and relinquish any rights or benefits available to them under California Civil Code § 1542, 17 which provides: 18 A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS 19 THAT THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT 20 THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF 21 KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR 22 OR RELEASED PARTY.

23 9.4 Notwithstanding Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, or any other federal or

24 state statute or rule of law of similar effect, this Settlement Agreement shall be given full force 25 and effect according to each and all of its terms and provisions, including those related to any 26 unknown or unsuspected claims, liabilities, demands, or causes of action which are based on, 27 arise from, or are in any way connected with the Released Claims. 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 18 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 19 of 46

1 9.5 Upon entry of the Final Approval Order, Representative Plaintiff, and any 2 Settlement Class Member who does not Opt Out as set forth in Paragraph 11.4 is hereby barred 3 against bringing any action against any of the Released Parties for any of the Released Claims. 4 Additionally, Representative Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members agree and covenant, and each 5

6 Settlement Class member will be deemed to have agreed and covenanted, not to sue any of the

7 Released Parties with respect to any of the Released Claims, or otherwise assist others in doing so,

8 and agree to be forever barred from doing so, in any court of law, equity, or any other forum. 9 10. APPROVAL PROCESS 10 10.1 Court Approval 11 10.1.1 Class Counsel shall submit the Agreement together with its Exhibits to the 12 Court and request that the Court grant preliminary approval of the Settlement, issue a Preliminary 13

14 Approval Order, and schedule a hearing on whether the Settlement should be granted final

15 approval (collectively, “Motion for Preliminary Approval”).

16 10.1.2 In the Motion for Preliminary Approval, Class Counsel shall request that 17 the Court allow for a period of no less than ninety (90) days between entry of the Preliminary 18 Approval Order and the Final Approval Hearing and that the Court schedule a Final Approval 19 Hearing for a date approximately one hundred and twenty (120) days from entry of the 20

21 Preliminary Approval Order.

22 10.1.3 The date the Motion for Preliminary Approval is filed is the date by which

23 the Settlement shall be deemed “filed” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1715.

24 10.1.4 If the Motion for Preliminary Approval is granted, Class Counsel shall be 25 responsible for asking the Court to grant final approval of the Settlement and to enter a Final 26 Approval Order and Judgment, in accordance with the date set by the Court for the Final 27 Approval Hearing. 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 19 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 20 of 46

1 10.1.5 If the Court does not enter a Preliminary Approval Order or a Final Approval 2 Order and Judgment or if the Final Approval Order is reversed or vacated, by any court, this 3 Agreement shall terminate and be of no force or effect, except as otherwise set forth in this 4 Agreement, unless the Parties voluntarily agree to modify this Agreement in the manner necessary 5

6 to obtain Court approval. If this Agreement is terminated, any portion of the Settlement Fund

7 remaining, shall be returned to Defendant. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, the

8 Parties agree that any decision by any court as to any Fee Award to Class Counsel or any Service 9 Award to the Representative Plaintiff, described in Paragraphs 5.1 and 6.1 above, including any 10 decision by any court to award less than the amounts sought, shall not prevent the Agreement from 11 becoming effective, prevent Final Approval Order and Judgment from being entered, or provide 12 any grounds for termination of the Agreement or the Settlement. 13

14 10.2 Procedures for Objecting to the Settlement

15 10.2.1 Settlement Class Members shall have the right to appear and show cause, if

16 they have any reason why the terms of this Agreement should not be given final approval, subject 17 to each of the sub-provisions contained in this section. Any objection to this Settlement 18 Agreement, including any of its terms or provisions, must be in writing, filed with the Court or 19 mailed to the Clerk’s Office of the United States District Court for the Northern District of 20

21 California, Oakland Division, Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building& United States Courthouse,

22 1301 Clay Street, Suite 400 S, Oakland, CA 94612 by no later than the Opt-Out Deadline.

23 Settlement Class Members may object either on their own or through an attorney hired at their

24 own expense. 25 10.2.2 Any objection regarding or related to the Agreement shall contain a caption 26 or title that identifies it as “Objection to Class Settlement in Izor v. Abacus Data Systems Inc., 27 Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG” and also shall contain the following information: (i) the objector’s 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 20 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 21 of 46

1 name, address, and telephone number; (ii) the name, address, and telephone number of any 2 attorney for the objector with respect to the objection; (iii) the factual basis and legal grounds for 3 the objection, including any documents sufficient to establish the basis for his or her standing as 4 a Settlement Class Member, including the phone number(s) at which he or she received text(s) 5

6 covered by this Settlement; and (iv) identification of the case name, case number, and court for

7 any prior class action lawsuit in which the objector and the objector’s attorney (if applicable) has

8 objected to a proposed class action settlement. If an objecting party chooses to appear at the 9 hearing, no later than the Opt-Out Deadline, a notice of intention to appear, either in person or 10 through an attorney, must be filed with the Court and list the name, address, and telephone 11 number of the person and attorney, if any, who will appear. 12 10.2.3 A Settlement Class Member who appears at the Final Approval Hearing, 13

14 either personally or through counsel, may be permitted to argue only those matters that were set

15 forth in the timely and validly submitted written objection filed by such Settlement Class

16 Member. No Settlement Class Member shall be permitted to raise matters at the Final Approval 17 Hearing that the Settlement Class Member could have raised in his/her written objection, but 18 failed to do so, and all objections to the Settlement Agreement that are not set forth in a timely 19 and validly submitted written objection will be deemed waived. 20

21 10.2.4 If a Settlement Class Member wishes to present witnesses or evidence at

22 the Final Approval Hearing in support of a timely and validly submitted objection, all witnesses

23 must be identified in the objection, and true and correct copies of all supporting evidence must be

24 appended to, or filed and served with, the objection. Failure to identify witnesses or provide 25 copies of supporting evidence in this manner waives any right to introduce such testimony or 26 evidence at the Final Approval Hearing. Representative Plaintiff or Defendant or both may take 27

28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 21 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 22 of 46

1 discovery regarding any objector, their attorney (if applicable), and the basis of any objection, 2 subject to Court approval. 3 10.2.5 Any Settlement Class Member who fails to comply with the applicable 4 provisions of the preceding paragraphs concerning their objection shall waive and forfeit any and 5

6 all rights he or she may have to object, appear, present witness testimony, and/or submit evidence,

7 shall be barred from appearing, speaking, or introducing any testimony or evidence at the Final

8 Approval Hearing, shall be precluded from seeking review of this Agreement by appeal or other 9 means, and shall be bound by all the terms of this Agreement and by all proceedings, orders and 10 judgments in the Litigation. By filing an objection, objectors and their counsel submit to the 11 jurisdiction of the Court for all purposes, including but not limited to subpoenas and discovery. 12 10.3 Right to Respond to Objections 13

14 10.3.1 Class Counsel and the Parties shall have the right, but not the obligation, to

15 respond to any objection no later than seven (7) days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. The

16 Settling Party so responding shall file a copy of the response with the Court, and shall serve a 17 copy, by hand or overnight delivery, to the objector (or counsel for the objector). 18 10.4 Opt Outs 19 10.4.1 Any Settlement Class Member who does not wish to participate in this 20

21 Settlement must write to the Settlement Administrator stating an intention to be “excluded” from

22 this Settlement. This written request for exclusion must be sent via first class United States mail

23 to the Settlement Administrator at the address set forth in the Notice and postmarked no later than

24 the Opt-Out Deadline. A request for exclusion must be signed by the Settlement Class Member, 25 and must include the Settlement Class Member’s name, address, and the telephone number that 26 allegedly received a text or text messages sent by Trumpia on behalf of Defendant during the 27 Settlement Class Period, and must clearly state that the Person wishes to be excluded from the 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 22 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 23 of 46

1 Litigation and the Agreement. A request for exclusion that does not include all of this information, 2 or that is sent to an address other than that designated in the Notice, or that is not postmarked 3 within the time specified, shall be invalid, and the Person serving such a request shall be a member 4 of the Settlement Class and shall be bound as a Settlement Class Member by the Court’s Orders 5

6 in this Litigation and by this Agreement, if approved. The request for exclusion must be personally

7 signed by the Settlement Class Member. So-called “mass” or “class” opt-outs shall not be allowed.

8 10.4.2 Any Person in the Settlement Class who submits a request for exclusion 9 may not file an objection to the Settlement. If a Settlement Class Member submits a written 10 request for exclusion pursuant to Paragraph 10.4.1 above, he or she shall be deemed to have 11 complied with the terms of the opt-out procedure and shall not be bound by the Agreement if 12 approved by the Court. 13

14 10.4.3 After Notice is disseminated and at least fifteen (15) days prior to the Final

15 Approval Hearing, the Parties shall request and seek to obtain from the Court a Final Approval

16 Order and Judgment, which will (among other things): 17 (i) find that the Court has personal jurisdiction over all Settlement Class 18 Members and that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to approve the Agreement, including all exhibits hereto; 19 (ii) approve the Settlement Agreement and the proposed Settlement as fair, 20 reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of, Settlement Class 21 Members; direct the Parties and their counsel to implement and consummate the Agreement according to its terms and provisions; and 22 declare the Agreement to be binding on, and have preclusive effect on all 23 pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings maintained by or on behalf of Representative Plaintiff and the Releasing Parties; 24 (iii) find that the Notice and the Notice Plan implemented pursuant to the 25 Agreement (1) constitute the best practicable notice under the 26 circumstances; (2) constitute notice that is reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise members of the Settlement Class of the pendency 27 of the Litigation, their right to object to or exclude themselves from the proposed Settlement, and to appear at the Final Approval Hearing; (3) are 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 23 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 24 of 46

1 reasonable and constitute due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all Persons 2 entitled to receive notice; and (4) meet all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Due Process Clause of the United 3 States Constitution, and the rules of the Court;

4 (iv) dismiss the Action (including all individual claims and Settlement Class 5 Member claims asserted therein) on the merits and with prejudice, without fees or costs to any Party, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement; 6 incorporate the releases set forth above in Section 9, make those releases effective as of the date of the Final Approval Order and Judgment; and 7

8 (v) forever discharge the Released Parties as set forth herein; permanently bar and enjoin all Settlement Class Members from filing, commencing, 9 prosecuting, intervening in, or participating (as class members or otherwise) in, any lawsuit or other action in any jurisdiction related to the 10 Released Claims. 11 10.4.4. Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, in the event the total 12 number of opt outs exceeds 1,000, Defendant shall have the right—at its sole discretion—to 13 terminate this agreement and return the parties to the status quo pursuant to Paragraph 12.4 14 below, upon written notice given within seven business days of the Opt Out deadline. 15

16 11. TAXES

17 Settlement Class Members, Representative Plaintiff, and Class Counsel shall be

18 responsible for paying any and all federal, state, and local taxes due on any payments made to

19 them pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

20 11.1 Qualified Settlement Fund. The Parties agree that the Escrow Account into which

21 the Settlement Fund is deposited is intended to be and will at all times constitute a “Qualified

22 Settlement Fund” within the meaning of Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1. The Claims

23 Administrator will timely make such elections as necessary, including if necessary, the “relation

24 back election” (as defined in Treas. Reg. § 1.468B-1(j)(2)) back to the earliest permitted date.

25 Such elections must be made in compliance with the procedures and requirements contained in

26 such Treasury regulations promulgated under § 1.468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as

27 amended (the “Code”). It is the responsibility of the Claims Administrator to cause the timely

28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 24 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 25 of 46

1 and proper preparation and delivery of the necessary documentation for signature by all necessary

2 parties, and thereafter to cause the appropriate filing to occur.

3 11.2 Claims Administrator is “Administrator.” For the purpose of § 1.468B of the

4 Code and the Treasury regulations thereunder, the Claims Administrator must be designated as

5 the “administrator” of the Settlement Fund. The Claims Administrator must cause to be timely

6 and properly filed all information and other tax returns necessary or advisable with respect to the

7 Settlement Fund (including, without limitation, the returns described in Treas. Reg. §

8 1.468B2(k)). Such returns must reflect that all taxes (including any estimated taxes, interest or

9 penalties) on the income earned by the Settlement Fund will be paid out of the Settlement Fund.

10 11.3 Taxes Paid By Administrator. All taxes arising in connection with income earned

11 by the Settlement Fund , including any taxes or tax detriments that may be imposed upon

12 Defendant or any of the other Released Parties with respect to any income earned by the

13 Settlement Fund for any period during which the Settlement Fund does not qualify as a “qualified

14 settlement fund” for federal or state income tax purposes, will be paid by the Settlement Fund.

15 11.4 Expenses Paid from Fund. Any expenses reasonably incurred by the Claims

16 Administrator in carrying out the duties, including fees of tax attorneys and accountants, will be

17 paid from the Settlement Fund.

18 11.5 Responsibility for Taxes on Distribution. Any person or entity that receives a

19 distribution from the Settlement Fund will be solely responsible for any taxes or tax-related

20 expenses owed or incurred by that person or entity by reason of that distribution. Such taxes and

21 tax-related expenses will not be paid from the Settlement Fund.

22 11.6 Defendant is Not Responsible. In no event will Defendant or any of the other

23 Released Parties have any responsibility or liability for taxes or tax-related expenses arising in

24 connection with the payment or distribution of the Settlement Fund to Representative Plaintiff,

25 Settlement Class Members, Class Counsel or any other person or entity. The Settlement Class

26 Members shall indemnify and hold Defendant and other Released Parties harmless—through the

27 Settlement Fund— for all such taxes and tax-related expenses. 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 25 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 26 of 46

1 12. CONDITIONS FOR EFFECTIVE DATE; EFFECT OF TERMINATION 2 12.1 The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date the Judgment has become 3 Final, as defined in Paragraph 1.1.14. 4 12.2 Performance of the obligations set forth in this Agreement is subject to all of the 5

6 following material conditions:

7 (A) execution of this Agreement by Defendant, Representative Plaintiff, and Class Counsel. 8 (B) the granting of preliminary approval by the Court. 9

10 (C) sending of the notices described herein.

11 (D) the granting of final approval by the Court.

12 (E) execution and entry of Judgment by the Court.

13 (F) the occurrence of all other circumstances necessary for the Effective Date to arise. 14 12.3 The Parties hereby covenant and agree to cooperate reasonably and in good faith for 15 the purpose of achieving occurrence of the conditions set forth above, including, without limitation, 16 timely filing of all motions, papers and evidence necessary to do so, and refraining from causing or 17

18 encouraging directly or indirectly any appeal or petition for writ proceedings by third parties

19 seeking review of any order contemplated by this Agreement. Class Counsel represent and warrant

20 that they have authority to take all such actions required of them pursuant to this Agreement, and

21 that by doing so they are not in breach or violation of any agreement with Class Plaintiff or any 22 third party. 23 12.4 If this Agreement is not approved by the Court or the Settlement is terminated or 24 fails to become effective in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Settling Parties will 25

26 be restored to their respective positions in the Litigation as of June 4, 2020. In such event, the

27 terms and provisions of this Agreement will have no further force and effect with respect to the

28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 26 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 27 of 46

1 Settling Parties and will not be used in this Litigation or in any other proceeding for any purpose, 2 and any Judgment or order entered by the Court in accordance with the terms of this Agreement 3 will be treated as vacated. 4 12.5 The Parties agree to request a stay of the Litigation pending approval of the 5

6 Settlement.

7 13. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

8 13.1 Cooperation of the Parties: The Parties acknowledge that it is their intent to 9 consummate this Agreement, and they agree to cooperate to the extent reasonably necessary to 10 effectuate and implement all terms and conditions of this Agreement and to exercise their best 11 efforts to accomplish the foregoing terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Parties agree that 12 they will not solicit, facilitate, or assist in any way, requests for exclusions or objections by 13

14 putative or actual Settlement Class Members. Class Counsel recognize that they have an

15 obligation to support the Settlement and to seek the Court’s approval of its terms. Class Counsel

16 will abide by all applicable and governing ethical rules, opinions, and obligations precluding their 17 representation of opt-outs. 18 13.2 Resolution of Dispute without Admission: The Parties intend the Settlement to be 19 a final and complete resolution of all disputes between them with respect to the Litigation. The 20

21 Settlement covers claims that are contested and will not be deemed an admission by any Settling

22 Party as to the merits of any claim or defense.

23 13.3 Use In Subsequent Proceedings: Neither this Agreement nor the Settlement, nor

24 any act performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of this Agreement or the 25 Settlement is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of, the 26 validity of any Released Claims, or of any wrongdoing or liability of Defendant; or is or may be 27 deemed to be or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of, any fault or omission of 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 27 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 28 of 46

1 Defendant in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding in any court, administrative agency 2 or other tribunal. Any party to this Litigation may file this Agreement and/or the Judgment in any 3 action that may be brought against it in order to support any defense or counterclaim, including 4 without limitation those based on principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith 5

6 settlement, judgment bar or reduction, or any other theory of claim preclusion or issue preclusion

7 or similar defense or counterclaim.

8 13.4 Confidential Information: All agreements made and orders entered during the 9 course of the Litigation relating to the confidentiality of information will survive this Agreement. 10 13.5 Incorporation of Exhibits: Any and all Exhibits to this Agreement are material and 11 integral parts hereof and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. 12 13.6 Modification: This Agreement may be amended or modified only by (1) a written 13

14 instrument signed by or on behalf of all Parties or their respective successors-in-interest, or (2)

15 Court order.

16 13.7 Integration: This Agreement and any Exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire 17 agreement among the Parties, and no representations, warranties, or inducements have been made 18 to any Party concerning this Agreement or its Exhibits other than the representations, warranties, 19 and covenants covered and memorialized in such documents. Except as otherwise provided 20

21 herein, the Parties will bear their own respective costs.

22 13.8 Class Counsel’s Authority: Class Counsel, on behalf of the Settlement Class, are

23 expressly authorized by Representative Plaintiff to take all appropriate action required or

24 permitted to be taken by the Settlement Class pursuant to this Agreement to effectuate its terms, 25 and are expressly authorized to enter into any modifications or amendments to this Agreement on 26 behalf of the Settlement Class. 27

28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 28 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 29 of 46

1 13.9 Parties’ Authority: Each counsel or other Person executing this Agreement or any 2 of its Exhibits on behalf of any Party hereby warrants that such Person has the full authority to do 3 so. 4 13.10 Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts. All 5

6 executed counterparts and each of them will be deemed to be one and the same instrument.

7 13.11 No Prior Assignments. Representative Plaintiff and Class Counsel represent,

8 covenant, and warrant that they have not directly or indirectly assigned, transferred, encumbered, 9 or purported to assign, transfer, or encumber to any person or entity any portion of any liability, 10 claim, demand, action, cause of action or rights herein released and discharged except as set forth 11 herein. 12 13.12 Binding on Assigns: This Agreement will be binding upon, and inure to the 13

14 benefit of, the successors and assigns of the Parties and the Settlement Class Members.

15 13.13 Interpretation: None of the Parties, or their respective counsel, will be deemed the

16 drafter of this Agreement or its Exhibits for purposes of construing the provisions thereof. The 17 language in all parts of this Agreement and its Exhibits will be interpreted according to its fair 18 meaning, and will not be interpreted for or against any of the Parties as the drafter thereof. 19 13.14 Governing Law: This Agreement and any Exhibits hereto will be construed and 20

21 enforced in accordance with, and governed by, the internal, substantive laws of the State of

22 California without giving effect to that State’s choice-of-law principles.

23 13.15 The headings used herein are used for the purpose of convenience only and are not

24 meant to have legal effect. 25 13.16 No Waiver: The waiver by one Party of any breach of this Agreement by any 26 other Party shall not be deemed as a waiver of any other prior or subsequent breaches of this 27 Agreement. 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 29 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 30 of 46

1 13.17 Publicity and Confidentiality. Neither the Parties nor their counsel will initiate any 2 public statement intended to be disseminated through the press, internet, television, radio, or other 3 media that includes an opinion or editorial comment about the effect of the Settlement or the 4 merits of any Parties’ positions in the Litigation. This provision does not apply to any 5

6 communications between any Settlement Class member and Class Counsel or any

7 communications with the Court.

8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement. 9 Dated:

10 June 17, 2020

11 ______Eric Hart, General Counsel for Abacus Data Systems, Inc. On Behalf of Defendant Abacus Data Systems Inc. 12 Dated: 13

14 ______15 Paul Izor

16 Dated: 17

18 ______On Behalf of Kaufman, P.A. 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 30 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 31 of 46 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 32 of 46

EXHIBIT A Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 33 of 46

CLAIM FORM

Abacus Data Systems Inc. Settlement

Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG

Return this Claim Form to: Settlement Administrator, PO Box xxxx, xxxxx- xxxx. Questions, visit www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com or call 1-8xx-xxx-xxxx.

DEADLINE: THIS CLAIM FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED ONLINE OR POSTMARKED BY DATE, 2020, BE FULLY COMPLETED, BE SIGNED UNDER OATH, AND MEET ALL CONDITIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

YOU MUST SUBMIT THIS CLAIM FORM TO RECEIVE A SETTLEMENT PAYMENT.

Please note that if you are a Class Member, the Class Member Verification section below requires you to state, under penalty of perjury, that all information contained therein is true and correct. This Claim Form may be researched and verified by the Settlement Administrator.

YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION

Name: (First) (Middle) (Last)

Current Address:

(City) (State) (ZIP Code)

Telephone Number on the Date you Received a Text Message, as verified below: ( ) – Email address :

Current Phone Number: ( ) – or  check if same as above (Please provide a phone number where you can be reached if further information is required.)

Class Member Verification By submitting this claim form, I declare under penalty of perjury that to the best of my knowledge I received one (1) or more text message sent by or on behalf of Abacus Data Systems.

************************************************************************ Additional information regarding the Settlement can be found at www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com

Signature: Date:

Print Name:

If you have questions, you may call the Settlement Administrator at 1-8xx-xxx-xxxx.

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 34 of 46

EXHIBIT B Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 35 of 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

If You Received a Text Sent By or on Behalf of Abacus Data Systems Inc., You May be Entitled to a Payment from a Class Action Settlement.

A federal court authorized this notice. You are not being sued. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. • A Settlement1 has been reached in a class action lawsuit about whether Abacus Data Systems Inc. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”), based on text messages sent by or on behalf of Abacus Data Systems. Abacus Data Systems denies the allegations in the lawsuit and the Court has not decided who is right. • The Settlement offers payments to Settlement Class Members who file valid Claims. • Your legal rights are affected whether you act or do not act. Read this notice carefully.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

SUBMIT A If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a completed CLAIM FORM Claim Form to receive a payment. If the Court approves the Settlement and it becomes final and effective, and you remain in the Settlement Class, you will receive your payment by check.

EXCLUDE You may request to be excluded from the Settlement and if you do, you YOURSELF will receive no benefits from the Settlement.

OBJECT Write to the Court if you do not like the Settlement.

GO TO A HEARING Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement.

DO NOTHING You will not receive a payment if you fail to timely submit a completed Claim Form, and you will give up your right to bring your own lawsuit against Abacus Data Systems about the claims in this case.

• These rights and options—and the deadlines to exercise them—are explained in this notice. • The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the Settlement. If it does, and after any appeals are resolved, benefits will be distributed to those who submit qualifying Claim Forms. Please be patient.

1 Capitalized terms herein have the same meanings as those defined in the Settlement Agreement, a copy of which may be found online at the Settlement Website, www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com.

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 36 of 46 WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS BASIC INFORMATION...... PAGE 3 1. Why is there a notice? 2. What is this litigation about? 3. What is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act? 4. Why is this a class action? 5. Why is there a settlement?

WHO IS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT...... PAGE 4 6. Who is included in the Settlement? 7. What if I am not sure whether I am included in the Settlement?

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS...... PAGE 4 8. What does the Settlement provide? 9. How do I file a Claim? 10. When will I receive my payment?

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT...... PAGE 5 11. How do I get out of the Settlement? 12. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue Abacus Data Systems for the same thing later? 13. What am I giving up to stay in the Settlement Class? 14. If I exclude myself, can I still get a payment?

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU...... PAGE 6 15. Do I have a lawyer in the case? 16. How will the lawyers be paid?

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT...... PAGE 6 17. How do I tell the Court I do not like the Settlement? 18. What is the difference between objecting and asking to be excluded?

THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING...... PAGE 7 19. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement? 20. Do I have to attend the hearing? 21. May I speak at the hearing?

IF YOU DO NOTHING...... PAGE 7 22. What happens if I do nothing at all?

GETTING MORE INFORMATION...... PAGE 7 23. How do I get more information?

QUESTIONS? CALL 1-8xx-xxx-xxxx OR VISIT www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com 2

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 37 of 46 BASIC INFORMATION

1. Why is there a notice?

A Court authorized this notice because you have a right to know about a proposed Settlement of a class action lawsuit known as Paul Izor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Abacus Data Systems Inc., N.D. Cal. Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG, and about all of your options before the Court decides whether to give Final Approval to the Settlement. This notice explains the lawsuit, the Settlement, and your legal rights. The United States District Court, Northern District of California is overseeing this case. The person that sued, Paul Izor, is called the “Plaintiff.” Abacus Data Systems Inc. is called the “Defendant.”

2. What is this litigation about?

The lawsuit alleges that Abacus Data Systems violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”), based on unsolicited autodialed texts to individuals, some of whom may have been registered on the national Do Not Call registry. The lawsuit seeks actual and/or statutory damages under the TCPA on behalf of the named Plaintiff and similarly situated classes of individuals in the United States. Abacus Data Systems denies each and every allegation of wrongdoing, liability and damages that was or could have been asserted in the litigation, and that the claims in the litigation would be appropriate for class treatment if the litigation were to proceed through trial. The Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Settlement Agreement, and other case-related documents are posted on the settlement website, www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com. The Settlement resolves the lawsuit. The Court has not decided who is right.

3. What is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act?

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (commonly referred to as the “TCPA”) is a federal law that restricts, among other things, unsolicited autodialed text messages.

4. Why is this a class action?

In a class action, one person called the “Class Representative” (in this case, Plaintiff Paul Izor) sues on behalf of himself and other people with similar claims. All of the people who have claims similar to Plaintiff’s are members of the Settlement Class, except for those who exclude themselves from the class.

5. Why is there a settlement?

The Court has not found in favor of Plaintiff or Abacus Data Systems. Instead, the parties have agreed to a Settlement. By agreeing to the Settlement, the parties avoid the costs and uncertainty of a trial, and if the Settlement is approved by the Court, Settlement Class Members will receive the benefits described in this notice. Abacus Data Systems denies all legal claims in this case, but is settling to avoid the uncertainties and costs attendant with litigation. Plaintiff and his lawyers think the proposed Settlement is best for everyone who is affected.

QUESTIONS? CALL 1-8xx-xxx-xxxx OR VISIT www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com 3

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 38 of 46 WHO IS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT 6. Who is included in the Settlement?

The Settlement Class includes: All regular users or subscribers of numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, paging service, specialized mobile radio service, radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call to which a text message was transmitted by Trumpia on behalf of Abacus Data Systems Inc. between February 26, 2015 and the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (A) the Judges who have presided over the Litigation and their immediate family members; (B) Defendant, Defendant’s officers, Defendant’s directors, and their immediate family members; and (C) the legal representatives of any such excluded person(s).

7. What if I am not sure whether I am included in the Settlement?

If you are not sure whether you are in the Settlement Class, or have any other questions about the Settlement, visit the settlement website at www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com. You also may call or send questions to the Settlement Administrator at 1-8xx-xxx-xxxx or [email protected].

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS

8. What does the Settlement provide?

Abacus Data Systems has agreed to fund a Settlement Fund totaling $1,950,000. The Settlement Fund will be used to pay all settlement costs, including settlement administration costs, any attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses awarded to Class Counsel by the Court, any service award awarded to the Class Representative by the Court, and all Approved Claims. Members of the Settlement Class who submit Approved Claims shall receive a pro rata share of the Settlement Fund minus a pro rata share of Settlement Costs. Although the exact amount of each claimant’s share of the Settlement Fund is unknown at this time, the parties expect each claimant’s share will be between $400 and $600. Only Approved Claims will be paid. Only one claim per telephone number will be validated and deemed an Approved Claim.

9. How do I file a Claim?

If you qualify for a cash payment you must complete and submit a valid Claim Form. You can file your Claim Form online at www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com, or send it by U.S. Mail to the address below. The deadline to file a Claim online is 11:59 p.m. EST on DATE, 2020. Claim Forms submitted by mail must be postmarked on or before DATE, 2020 to: Abacus Data Systems Settlement Administrator PO Box XXX, City, State XXXXX-XXXX No matter which method you choose to file your Claim Form, please read the Claim Form carefully and provide all the information required. Only one claim per telephone number will be validated and deemed an Approved Claim.

10. When will I receive my payment?

QUESTIONS? CALL 1-8xx-xxx-xxxx OR VISIT www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com 4

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 39 of 46 Payments to Settlement Class Members will be made only after the Court grants Final Approval to the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved (see “Final Approval Hearing” below). If there are appeals, resolving them can take time. Please be patient. EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT If you do not want benefits from the Settlement, and you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue Abacus Data Systems on your own about the legal issues in this case, then you must take steps to get out of the Settlement. This is called excluding yourself – or it is sometimes referred to as “opting- out” of the Settlement Class.

11. How do I get out of the Settlement?

To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must send a timely letter by mail to: Abacus Data Systems Settlement Administrator PO Box XXX City, State XXXXX-XXXX Your request to be excluded from the Settlement must be personally signed by you, be dated, include your full name (or, if a business, business name), address, and the telephone number that allegedly received a text or texts sent by or on behalf of Abacus Data Systems, and must clearly state that you wish to be excluded from the Litigation and the Agreement. Absent excluding yourself or “opting-out” you are otherwise a member of the Settlement Class. Your exclusion request must be postmarked no later than DATE, 2020. You cannot ask to be excluded on the phone, by email, or at the website. Opt outs must be made individually and cannot be made on behalf of other members of the Settlement Class.

12. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue the Defendant for the same thing later?

No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue Abacus Data Systems or any of the Released Parties for the claims that the Settlement resolves. You must exclude yourself from this Settlement to pursue your own lawsuit.

13. What am I giving up to stay in the Settlement Class?

Unless you opt-out of the Settlement, you cannot sue or be part of any other lawsuit against Abacus Data Systems or any of the Released Parties about the issues in this case, including any existing litigation, arbitration, or proceeding. Unless you exclude yourself, all of the decisions and judgments by the Court will bind you. The Settlement Agreement is available at www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com. The Settlement Agreement provides more detail regarding the Release and describes the Released Claims with specific descriptions in necessary, accurate legal terminology, so read it carefully. You can talk to the law firm representing the Class (Class Counsel) listed in Question 15 for free, or you can, at your own expense, talk to your own lawyer if you have any questions about the Released Claims or what they mean.

14. If I exclude myself, can I still get a payment?

No. You will not get a payment from the Settlement Fund if you exclude yourself from the Settlement.

QUESTIONS? CALL 1-8xx-xxx-xxxx OR VISIT www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com 5

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 40 of 46 THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

15. Do I have a lawyer in the case?

The Court has appointed Avi R. Kaufman and Rachel E. Kaufman of Kaufman P.A. (located at 400 NW 26th Street, Miami, FL 33127; telephone number 305-469-5881) and Stefan Coleman of Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A. (located at 11 Broadway Suite 615, New York, NY 10004; telephone number 877- 333-9427) as “Class Counsel” to represent all members of the Settlement Class. You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by another lawyer, you may hire one to appear in Court for you at your own expense.

16. How will the lawyers be paid?

Class Counsel intend to request attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the litigation not to exceed $25,000. The fees and expenses awarded by the Court will be paid out of the Settlement Fund. The Court will decide the amount of fees and expenses to award. Class Counsel also will request that a service award not to exceed $5,000 be paid from the Settlement Fund to the Class Representative for his service as representative on behalf of the whole Settlement Class.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT

17. How do I tell the Court if I do not like the Settlement?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class (and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class), you can object to any part of the Settlement. To object, you must timely submit a letter that includes the following: 1) A caption or title that identifies it as “Objection to Class Settlement in Izor v. Abacus Data Systems Inc., 4:19-cv-01057-HSG”; 2) Your name, address, and telephone number; 3) The name, address, and telephone number of any attorney for you with respect to the objection; 4) The factual basis and legal grounds for the objection, including any documents sufficient to establish the basis for your standing as a Settlement Class Member, including the phone number(s) at which you received text(s) covered by this Settlement; and 5) Identification of the case name, case number, and court for any prior class action lawsuit in which the you and/or your attorney (if applicable) has objected to a proposed class action settlement. If you wish to object, you must file your objection with the Court by (a) using the Court’s electronic filing system, (b) mailing it to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building& United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Suite 400 S, Oakland, CA 94612, or (c) filing it in person at that location. Your objection must be filed and/or postmarked by DATE, 2020.

18. What is the difference between objecting and asking to be excluded?

Objecting is telling the Court that you do not like something about the Settlement. You can object to the Settlement only if you do not exclude yourself. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to be part of the Settlement. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object to the Settlement because it no longer affects you.

QUESTIONS? CALL 1-8xx-xxx-xxxx OR VISIT www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com 6

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 41 of 46 THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement and any requests for attorneys’ fees and expenses and a service award (“Final Approval Hearing”).

19. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement?

The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing on DATE, 2020 at TIME, in Courtroom 2 – 4th Floor of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Courthouse, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612. The hearing may be moved to a different date, time, or location without additional mailed notice, so it is a good idea to check www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com for updates. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider the requests by Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses and for a service award to the Class Representative. If there are objections, the Court will consider them at that time. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement. It is unknown how long these decisions will take.

20. Do I have to attend the hearing?

No. Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. You are welcome to attend the hearing at your own expense.

21. May I speak at the hearing?

If you attend the Final Approval Hearing, you may ask the Court for permission to speak if you so choose. However, you cannot speak at the hearing if you exclude yourself from the Settlement.

IF YOU DO NOTHING

22. What happens if I do nothing at all?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do nothing, meaning you do not file a timely Claim, you will not get benefits from the Settlement. Further, unless you exclude yourself, you will be bound by the judgment entered by the Court. GETTING MORE INFORMATION

23. How do I get more information?

This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. You are urged to review more details in the Settlement Agreement. For a complete, definitive statement of the Settlement terms, refer to the Settlement Agreement at www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com, by contacting class counsel Kaufman P.A. at (305) 469-5881, by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. You also may call or write with questions to the Settlement Administrator at 1-8xx-xxx-xxxx, Abacus Data Systems Settlement Administrator, PO Box XXXX, City, State XXXXX-XXXX, or at [email protected]. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS. QUESTIONS? CALL 1-8xx-xxx-xxxx OR VISIT www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com 7

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 42 of 46

EXHIBIT C Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 43 of 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

If You Received a Text Sent By or on Behalf of Abacus Data Systems Inc., You May be Entitled to a Payment from a Class Action Settlement.

A court authorized this notice. You are not being sued. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit about whether Abacus Data Systems Inc. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”), based on unsolicited, autodialed text messages. Abacus Data Systems denies the allegations in the lawsuit and the Court has not decided who is right.

Who’s Included? You received this notice because Abacus Data System’s records show that you may be a Settlement Class member. The Settlement Class includes all regular users or subscribers of numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, paging service, specialized mobile radio service, radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call to which a text message was transmitted by Trumpia on behalf of Abacus Data Systems Inc. between February 26, 2015 and the date of preliminary approval of the Settlement.

What are the Settlement Terms? Abacus Data Systems has agreed to fund a Settlement Fund in an amount totaling $1,950,000. The Settlement Fund will be used to pay all settlement costs, including settlement administration costs, any attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded to Class Counsel by the Court, any service award awarded to the Class Representative by the Court, and all Approved Claims. Members of the Settlement Class who submit Approved Claims shall receive a pro rata share of the Settlement Fund minus a pro rata share of settlement costs. Although the exact amount of each claimant’s share of the Settlement Fund is unknown at this time, the parties expect each claimant’s share will be between $400 and $600. Only Approved Claims will be paid. Only one claim per telephone number will be validated and deemed an Approved Claim.

How can I get a Payment? By completing the Claim Form provided with this notice and submitting it by U.S. mail to the Settlement Administrator at the address on the Claim Form. You may also download or file a Claim Form online at www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com. If you send in a Claim Form by regular mail, it must be postmarked on or before DATE, 2020. The deadline to file a Claim Form online is 11:59 p.m. EST on DATE, 2020.

What are my Other Options? If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by DATE, 2020 by sending the Settlement Administrator a letter that complies with the procedure set forth in the Settlement and paragraph 11 of the Long Form Notice, available at the settlement website. If you do not exclude yourself, you can share in the Settlement Fund by completing and submitting a Claim Form, and you will release any claims you may have, as more fully described in the Settlement Agreement, available at the Settlement Website. Even though you submit a Claim Form, you may object to the Settlement by DATE, 2020 by complying with the objection procedures detailed in the Settlement. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on DATE, 2020 to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys’ fees not to exceed one third of the Settlement Fund and reimbursement of expenses, and a request for a service award of $5,000 to the Class Representative. You may appear at the hearing, either yourself or through an attorney hired by you, but you do not have to. For more information, call the Settlement Administrator or visit the Settlement Website. www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com 1-8xx-xxx-xxxx

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 44 of 46

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 PAUL IZOR, individually and on behalf of all Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG 5 others similarly situated, AMENDMENT 1 TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 6 Plaintiff, Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 7 v. Action Filed: February 26, 2019

8 ABACUS DATA SYSTEMS INC., a 9 California corporation,

10 Defendant.

11 This Amendment No. 1 to the Settlement Agreement and Release is entered into between 12 the Parties. 13 WHEREAS, on or about June 17, 2020, the Parties executed the Settlement Agreement 14 and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”), filed in the above-referenced matter as Docket 15

16 Number 69-1. 17 WHEREAS, on July 23, 2020, the Court in the Action entered an Order directing the

18 Parties to meet and confer and file (1) a stipulated proposed revision to release language in the

19 settlement agreement and (2) further detail regarding the policies and procedures that constitute 20 injunctive relief for the class members. 21 WHEREAS, the Parties met and conferred concerning the topics raised by the Court. 22 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate to the following revisions to the Settlement 23 24 Agreement:

25 • Section 1.1.29 is amended as follows: “Released Claims” shall mean any and all claims,

26 liabilities, demands, causes of action, or lawsuits of the Settlement Class Members, whether 27 known or unknown, whether legal, statutory, equitable, or of any other type or form, whether 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - 1 - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Doc ID: 4245be8e6d5160f8b1d39f93a2376c1668d75138 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 45 of 46

1 under federal, state, or local law (such as any violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection 2 Act, 47 USC § 227, the FCC’s related regulations—including Do Not Call requirements, or unfair 3 or deceptive practices act), and whether brought in an individual, representative, or any other 4 capacity, (a) that were brought in the Litigation or could have been brought under state or local 5 6 laws similar to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, (b) that arise from the manner in which 7 text messages were sent, or attempted to be sent, by or on behalf of Defendant, (c) that arise from

8 a lack of consent for sending text messages or (d) that arise from the sending, or attempted 9 sending, of text messages by or on behalf of Defendant to telephone numbers registered on any 10 federal or state do not call list, within the four years preceding February 26, 2019. It is the 11 Parties’ intent to comply with the factual predicate doctrine, which was raised by the Court during 12 the July 23, 2020 hearing on Representative Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Preliminary 13 14 Approval.

15 • With respect to the policies and procedures referenced in Section 4.3 of the Settlement

16 that constitute injunctive relief for the Settlement Class Members, the Parties agree as follows: 17 • Defendant will not make any telemarketing calls or send any telemarketing 18 text messages for a period of 2 years to any Settlement Class Member without an 19 independent investigation into the existence of consent (or another Telephone Consumer 20 21 Protection Act acceptable explanation) to call or text message a particular Settlement 22 Class Member.

23 • Defendant will obtain a subscription to the National Do Not Call Registry.

24 • Defendant will perform a quarterly spot check of 10 telemarketing calls 25 and/or texts made on its behalf. If any of those 10 calls are to a cellular telephone number 26 or a telephone number registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, Defendant will 27

28 AMENDMENT 1 TO CLASS ACTION

- 2 - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Doc ID: 4245be8e6d5160f8b1d39f93a2376c1668d75138 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 46 of 46

1 seek evidence of written permission to make those calls or another Telephone Consumer 2 Protection Act acceptable explanation. Defendant will perform an independent 3 investigation of any purported consent and will terminate any vendors that do not deliver 4 such consent or cooperate. 5 6 • Defendant will require any vendors making telemarketing calls to identify 7 any sub-vendors they use and get prior written approval to use them.

8 The Parties agree that these changes shall supersede and control over any conflicts in the

9 Settlement Agreement. All other terms not specifically modified by the Court’s Order and this 10 Amendment remain the same. 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment No. 1 to be duly 12 executed by themselves or by their duly authorized representatives: 13 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement.

15 Dated: August 6, 2020 16 Eric Hart, General Counsel 17 ______On Behalf of Defendant Abacus Data Systems Inc. 18 Dated: 19 08 / 06 / 2020 20 ______21 Paul Izor 22 Dated:

23 08/06/2020 ______24 On Behalf of Kaufman, P.A. 25 26 27

28 AMENDMENT 1 TO CLASS ACTION - 3 - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Doc ID: 4245be8e6d5160f8b1d39f93a2376c1668d75138 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-2 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 12

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 PAUL IZOR, individually and on behalf of Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG 4 all others similarly situated, 5 DECLARATION OF AVI R. KAUFMAN Plaintiff, IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL 6 APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION v. SETTLEMENT 7 8 ABACUS DATA SYSTEMS INC., a California corporation, 9 Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Defendant. 10 11 Avi R. Kaufman declares as follows: 12 1. I am one of the attorneys designated as Class Counsel for Plaintiff under the 13 14 Settlement Agreement (“Settlement” or “Agreement”) entered into with Defendant Abacus Data 15 Systems, Inc.1 I submit this declaration in support of the Motion for Final Approval of the Parties’

16 Class Action Settlement. Except as otherwise noted, I have personal knowledge of the facts set 17 forth in this declaration, and could testify competently to them if called upon to do so. 18 2. The Parties’ Settlement achieves exceptional monetary and non-monetary results 19 20 for the Class. The Settlement Agreement establishes a non-reversionary Settlement Fund in the 21 amount of $1,950,000 for the benefit of the Settlement Class, which will also be used to pay the

22 settlement costs. Based on the current claims rate, this equates to nearly $4002 per claiming 23

24 25 1 All capitalized defined terms used herein have the same meanings ascribed in the Agreement.

26 2 This estimate is based on a pro rata distribution after deduction of the anticipated settlement administration costs, requested service award, and requested attorneys’ fees of one-third of the 27 Settlement Fund. 28 1 Declaration of Attorney Avi R. Kaufman Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-2 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 12

Settlement Class Member; a truly exceptional result. And in addition to providing significant 1 2 monetary relief for the Settlement Class’s benefit, Defendant has agreed to broad injunctive relief

3 aimed at curbing future Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations directed towards 4 Settlement Class Members and the public at large. Specifically, Defendant has agreed to stop 5 making TCPA violative calls and to take actions to prevent TCPA violations by its vendors and 6 any subvendors. 7 8 3. Plaintiff initiated this litigation against the Defendant alleging violations of the

9 TCPA’s autodialer and do not call list provisions, seeking, inter alia, monetary damages and 10 injunctive relief. On February 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Complaint against Abacus Data 11 Systems Inc. in this action asserting claims under the TCPA’s autodialer and do not call list 12 provisions. [D.E. 1]. On April 22, 2019, Abacus filed a Motion to Dismiss and to Stay the 13 14 Proceedings pending FCC Guidance concerning what constitutes an autodialer under the TCPA

15 [D.E. 21]. On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff responded in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and to 16 Stay [D.E. 23]. On May 13, 2019, Abacus replied in support of the Motion to Dismiss and to 17 Stay [D.E. 24]. On August 5, 2019, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and to Stay 18 [D.E. 37]. On August 8, 2019, the Court held an initial case management conference and 19 20 thereafter entered a scheduling order. Defendant answered the Complaint on August 19, 2019

21 [D.E. 45]. 22 4. Thereafter, the parties engaged in extensive discovery involving, among other 23 things, multiple, extended meet and confers through which the parties were able to resolve their 24 discovery disputes without the need for motion practice. More specifically, as part of discovery, 25 26 each party served, responded to, and produced documents responsive to two waves of written

27 discovery requests. Plaintiff also engaged in extensive third party discovery, resulting in, among

28 2 Declaration of Attorney Avi R. Kaufman Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-2 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 12

other things, the filing of a subpoena enforcement action against Trumpia in the Central District 1 2 of California and Trumpia’s production of thousands of pages of documents and communications

3 relevant to this action, including the text messaging logs used to identify Settlement Class 4 Members. In connection with designating an expert witness concerning whether Trumpia’s text 5 messaging platform constitutes an autodialer under the TCPA, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s expert also 6 inspected non-party Trumpia’s text messaging platform. Additionally, Plaintiff’s, Plaintiff’s 7 8 expert’s, and various Defendant employees’ depositions were scheduled to occur within days of

9 when the parties ultimately reached an agreement in principle to settle this action (and, given the 10 logistical challenges presented by Covid-19, Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s expert, and Plaintiff’s counsel 11 had been prepared for those depositions, including through an exhaustive review of all of the 12 discovery up to that point). 13 14 5. On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff served his expert witness disclosures, including the

15 expert report of telecommunications systems expert Randall A. Snyder, centering on whether the 16 system used to send text messages to Settlement Class Members was an autodialer under the 17 TCPA. 18 6. Around that time, the Parties began settlement negotiations and scheduled 19 20 mediation. Based on the Parties’ analyses of the relative strengths and weaknesses of their cases

21 through formal and informal discovery, on February 19, 2020, the Parties engaged in a full-day, 22 contentious mediation in Los Angeles with JAMS mediator Bruce A. Friedman. The mediation 23 did not result in settlement, but did, among other things, involve the initial exchange of 24 information concerning Abacus’s financial condition. 25 26 7. During nearly four months of additional adversarial litigation, including, among

27 other things, briefing Defendant’s Motion to Stay pending a ruling from the Supreme Court

28 3 Declaration of Attorney Avi R. Kaufman Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-2 Filed 12/01/20 Page 4 of 12

concerning the constitutionality of the TCPA [D.E. 50, 58, 60, 62, 63], which the Court denied 1 2 on April 13, 2020 [D.E. 64], the parties engaged in further settlement negotiations with the

3 assistance of Mr. Friedman, ultimately reaching an agreement in principle as to a class wide 4 resolution culminating in the Settlement Agreement. 5 8. The Parties recognize and acknowledge the expense and length of continued 6 proceedings that would be necessary to prosecute the litigation against Defendant through trial 7 8 and potentially appeals. Plaintiff’s counsel has taken into account the strength of Defendant’s

9 defenses, the limitations of Defendant’s financial ability to pay a potential final judgment, 10 difficulties in obtaining class certification and proving liability, the uncertain outcome and risk of 11 the litigation, especially in complex actions such as this one, the inherent delays in such litigation, 12 and particularly the risk that a change in the law, including a ruling by the Supreme Court or this 13 14 Court concerning the constitutionality of the TCPA or an interpretation from the Supreme Court

15 or Federal Communications Commission regarding what constitutes an autodialer under the 16 TCPA, could nullify Plaintiff’s claims. See Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, 17 Inc., et al., No. 19-631; Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511; Creasy v. Charter Communs., Inc., 18 No. 20-1199, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177798 (E.D. La. Sep. 28, 2020). The risk that a class may 19 20 not be certified also favors final approval. If litigation had continued, Defendant would have

21 argued that consent and other defenses could not be determined on a class basis, and that, 22 therefore, class certification would be inappropriate. Plaintiff’s counsel believes that the 23 proposed Settlement confers substantial and immediate monetary and non-monetary benefits 24 upon the Settlement Class whereas continued and protracted litigation, even if successful, may 25 26 have ultimately delivered none. Based on their evaluation of all these factors, Plaintiff and 27

28 4 Declaration of Attorney Avi R. Kaufman Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-2 Filed 12/01/20 Page 5 of 12

Plaintiff’s counsel determined that the Settlement is in the best interests of Plaintiff and the 1 2 Settlement Class.

3 9. The Settlement Fund will be distributed pro rata to claiming Settlement Class 4 Members. After deducting the estimated notice and administration costs, Class Counsel fees and 5 expenses, and a Service Award from the Settlement Fund, each Claimant will receive a pro rata 6 distribution of nearly $400. 7 8 10. The Settlement confers substantial and immediate benefits upon the Settlement

9 Class whereas continued and protracted litigation may have ultimately delivered none given the 10 risks presented by Defendant’s defenses, the uncertainties of contested litigation, and the 11 everchanging TCPA landscape, including district courts’ ongoing scrutiny of the constitutionality 12 of the TCPA, and the Supreme Court’s and FCC’s pending decisions regarding the TCPA’s 13 14 autodialer provision.

15 11. What the Settlement Class releases through the settlement is related to what the 16 Class gains. In this case, the release from Settlement Class Members to Defendant is narrowly 17 tailored to claims arising from the text messages at issue, and is otherwise intended to comply 18 with the identical factual predicate doctrine. 19 20 12. The Court entered its Order Granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement on

21 August 24, 2020. [D.E. 73]. Both before and after that date, the Parties have worked diligently 22 with each other and the Claims Administrator to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 23 13. The Settlement Class unanimously endorses the Settlement. No Settlement Class 24 Members have opted out or objected. In fact, the only objection to the Settlement is from a serial 25 26 objector who is not a class member and who was disbarred by the State of California, in part, as

27 a result of misleading a court regarding an objection to a class action settlement, and whose

28 5 Declaration of Attorney Avi R. Kaufman Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-2 Filed 12/01/20 Page 6 of 12

objection is unsupported and otherwise baseless. See cases in which the objector, Mr. Helfand, 1 2 has objected, e.g., D.E. 193, In re Yahoo! Litig., No. 06-cv-02737 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2009); D.E.

3 136, Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 5:13-cv-04303 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2015); D.E. 196 4 Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 3:05-cv-38 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2016); see 5 State Bar of California, Steven Franklyn Helfand [#206667] of Florida Disbarred, dated April 6 28, 2020 (available at: https://twitter.com/statebarca/status/1255165510473441280) (concerning 7 8 Mr. Helfand’s disbarment).

9 14. Moreover, although Settlement Class Members were required to file objections 10 with the Court, in an abundance of caution, Class Counsel reviewed all correspondence received 11 by Epiq concerning the Settlement to confirm that no objections were sent to Epiq. 12 15. An evaluation of the relevant factors for determining whether the Parties’ 13 14 Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, overwhelmingly supports the granting of final

15 approval. 16 16. Here, discovery was nearly completed when the Parties reached Settlement. 17 Plaintiff served and received responses and responsive documents to two sets of written 18 discovery to Defendant, responded to two sets of written discovery from Defendant, issued and 19 20 received responses to third party discovery, prepared for depositions, and engaged in the

21 informal exchange of additional information concerning Defendant, including financial 22 information, before finalizing the proposed Settlement. From the start, Class Counsel conducted 23 a thorough investigation and analysis of Plaintiff’s claims, including by engaging and obtaining 24 testimony from a telecommunications systems expert, and engaged in extensive discovery. Class 25 26 Counsel’s understanding of the key issues driving the litigation, including the likelihood of class

27 certification, the strength of Defendant’s consent and other defenses, and the ever-shifting TCPA

28 6 Declaration of Attorney Avi R. Kaufman Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-2 Filed 12/01/20 Page 7 of 12

law landscape, prepared them for well-informed settlement negotiations. As a result, the 1 2 Settlement here was the result of extensive, arm’s-length negotiations between experienced

3 attorneys who are familiar with class action litigation and with the legal and factual issues of this 4 Action. 5 17. Class Counsel are particularly experienced in the litigation, certification, and 6 settlement of nationwide TCPA class action cases. 7 8 18. Since 2008, the attorneys of Kaufman P.A. have worked on consumer class action

9 cases that have ended in class-wide settlements totaling more than $100 million. Kaufman P.A.’s 10 attorneys have also successfully recovered millions of dollars in settlements and judgments for 11 plaintiffs in breach of contract actions in the media, real estate, fashion, healthcare, 12 telecommunications, and banking industries. 13 14 19. I have a degree in government from Harvard University and a JD from

15 Georgetown University Law Center. Prior to founding Kaufman P.A., I worked at Kopelowitz 16 Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert and Carlton Fields Jorden Burt in their national class action 17 and commercial litigation practice groups. I am a member of the Florida bar, and am admitted to 18 practice in all federal district courts in Florida and in the Eleventh Circuit. I am also admitted to 19 20 practice in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Eastern District of Michigan, Northern District of

21 Illinois, District of Colorado, and Western District of Arkansas. 22 20. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. has degrees in communications and philosophy from 23 Northwestern University and a JD from Boston University School of Law. Prior to joining 24 Kaufman P.A., Rachel worked at Lash & Goldberg in its commercial litigation practice and 25 26 Epstein, Becker & Green in its class action, commercial litigation, and healthcare practices.

27 Rachel is a member of the California, Florida, and Washington, D.C. bars. Rachel is also admitted

28 7 Declaration of Attorney Avi R. Kaufman Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-2 Filed 12/01/20 Page 8 of 12

to practice in all federal district courts in California, the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, 1 2 the Eleventh Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit.

3 21. During the last few years, the attorneys of Kaufman P.A. have specialized in 4 matters arising under the TCPA and have been appointed as class counsel in the following actions: 5 • Gottlieb v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation (S.D. Fla. 2017), a nationwide 6 Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action resulting in an $8.3 million class wide settlement. 7 8 • Broward Psychology, P.A. v. SingleCare Services, LLC (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2019), a Florida Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action resulting in a $925,110 9 class wide settlement.

10 • Van Elzen v. Educator Group Plans, et. al. (E.D. Wis. 2019), a nationwide Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action resulting in a $900,000 class 11 wide settlement. 12 • Halperin v. YouFit Health Clubs, LLC (S.D. Fla. 2019), a nationwide Telephone 13 Consumer Protection Act class action resulting in a $1.4 million class wide settlement. 14 15 • Armstrong v. Codefied Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2019), a nationwide Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action resulting in a $2.2 million class wide settlement. 16 • Itayim v. CYS Group, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2020), a Florida Telephone Consumer 17 Protection Act class action resulting in a $492,250 class wide settlement.

18 • Bulette v. Western Dental, et al. (N.D. Cal. 2020), a nationwide Telephone 19 Consumer Protection Act class action resulting in a $9.7 million class wide settlement. 20 • Donde v. Freedom Franchise Systems, LLC, et al. (S.D. Fla. 2020), a nationwide 21 Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action settlement resulting in a $948,475.50 class wide settlement. 22 23 • Fitzhenry v. Independent Home Products, LLC (D.S.C. 2020), a nationwide Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action making $5.16 million available 24 to the settlement class. (Final fairness hearing is scheduled for March 1, 2021).

25 22. Class Counsel zealously represented Plaintiff and the Settlement Class’s best 26 interests throughout this litigation, and will continue to do so. 27

28 8 Declaration of Attorney Avi R. Kaufman Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-2 Filed 12/01/20 Page 9 of 12

23. Class Counsel are confident in the strength of Plaintiff’s case, but are also 1 2 pragmatic in their awareness of the various defenses available to Defendant, and the risks inherent

3 in obtaining class certification, and prevailing at trial and on appeal. The success of Plaintiff’s 4 claims turn on questions that would arise at class certification, summary judgment, trial, during 5 an inevitable post-judgment appeal, and in proceedings before the Supreme Court and FCC to 6 which Plaintiff is not a party. Under the circumstances, Class Counsel appropriately determined 7 8 that the benefits of the Settlement outweigh the risks of continued litigation.

9 24. As approved by the Court, the Notice Program included direct mail notice and 10 publication notice. The notices advised Settlement Class members of the substantive terms of the 11 Settlement, their options for remaining part of the Settlement Class, for objecting to the Settlement 12 or to Class Counsel’s Attorneys’ fee application and request for Service Award, and for opting- 13 14 out of the Settlement, and how to obtain additional information about the Settlement. The notices

15 also advised Settlement Class Members that they could file claims by mail or on the Settlement 16 website (to avoid any post-marking or postal service related issues)3 and of the amount estimated 17 to be paid to each Claimant (which was ultimately an accurate estimate). As a result, the notice 18 to the Settlement Class was the best practicable notice, because it was intended to, and in fact did, 19 20 inform the Settlement Class of its rights.

21 25. The Court should finally certify the Settlement Class as it continues to meet all the 22 requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). 23 24 25 3 Oddly, although the objector asserts that he “could not comply with the” Settlement related 26 deadlines and that his “objection is dated earlier,” although not a Settlement Class Member, the objector did in fact serve his objection prior to the objection deadline on October 27, 2020, the 27 date of his objection. 28 9 Declaration of Attorney Avi R. Kaufman Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-2 Filed 12/01/20 Page 10 of 12

26. Specifically, the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a) is satisfied because the 1 2 Settlement Class consists of approximately 18,719 persons identifiable from the text messaging

3 logs produced by Trumpia in discovery, and joinder of all Settlement Class Members is 4 impracticable. 5 27. Here, the commonality requirement is readily satisfied. There are multiple 6 questions of law and fact that are common to the Settlement Class that would generate common 7 8 answers. These questions are directly guided by Defendant’s defenses, including whether the

9 Trumpia text messaging platform used to text message all Settlement Class Members constitutes 10 an autodialer under the TCPA; whether Defendant is vicariously liable for text messages sent by 11 Trumpia to all Settlement Class Members; whether these text message recipients have Article III 12 standing based on receiving one or more substantively similar marketing text message; whether 13 14 Defendant had consent to send the text messages based on the existence of a prior business

15 relationship between it and text message recipients; and whether Defendant is entitled to rely on 16 a safe harbor defense as to all Settlement Class Members based on its general business practices, 17 including specifically its alleged substantial compliance with the TCPA. 18 28. Plaintiff is typical of the Settlement Class Members because he received 19 20 unsolicited text messages on behalf of Defendant from Trumpia, is a Settlement Class Member,

21 and will benefit in the same way as other Settlement Class Members from the relief provided by 22 the Settlement. 23 29. Plaintiff’s interests are coextensive with, not antagonistic to, the interests of the 24 Settlement Class, because Plaintiff is a Settlement Class Member and has the same interest as 25 26 other Settlement Class Members in the relief afforded by the Settlement, and the absent

27 Settlement Class Members have no diverging interests. Plaintiff was not promised money and

28 10 Declaration of Attorney Avi R. Kaufman Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-2 Filed 12/01/20 Page 11 of 12

Class Counsel was not required to request a service award that increased on a sliding scale as the 1 2 class’s monetary recovery increased. There is absolutely no basis to conclude otherwise or to

3 find that Plaintiff has any interests inconsistent with the Settlement Class’s interests. Just as there 4 is no basis to conclude that Class Counsel are inadequate or have a conflict of interest with the 5 Settlement Class. 6 30. The Settlement Class readily satisfies the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement 7 8 because the questions common to all Settlement Class Members – including whether Trumpia’s

9 platform used to text message all Settlement Class Members constitutes an autodialer under the 10 TCPA; whether Defendant is vicariously liable for text messages sent by Trumpia to all 11 Settlement Class Members; whether these text message recipients have Article III standing based 12 on receiving one or more substantively similar marketing text message; whether Defendant had 13 14 consent to send the text messages based on the existence of a prior business relationship between

15 it and text message recipients; and whether Defendant is entitled to rely on a safe harbor defense 16 as to all Settlement Class Members based on its general business practices, including specifically 17 its alleged substantial compliance with the TCPA – substantially outweigh any possible issues 18 that are individual to each Settlement Class Member. Relatedly, the Settlement Class satisfies 19 20 Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirement because “common issues of law and fact predominate

21 over any individualized issues” and “the large number of claims, along with the relatively small 22 statutory damages, the desirability of adjudicating these claims consistently, and the probability 23 that individual members would not have a great interest in controlling the prosecution of these 24 claims, all indicate that a class action would be the superior method of adjudicating” Plaintiff’s 25 26 “claims under the TCPA.”

27

28 11 Declaration of Attorney Avi R. Kaufman Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-2 Filed 12/01/20 Page 12 of 12

* * * 1 2 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

3 true and correct. 4 Dated: December 1, 2020 /s/ Avi R. Kaufman 5 Avi R. Kaufman 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 12 Declaration of Attorney Avi R. Kaufman Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-3 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 ) 12 PAUL IZOR, individually and on behalf of all ) Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG others similarly situated, ) 13 ) 14 Plaintiff, ) ) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 15 v. ) FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION ) SETTLEMENT 16 ABACUS DATA SYSTEMS INC., ) ) 17 Defendant. ) 18 ) ) 19 )

20 In connection with granting preliminary approval of the parties’ class-wide Settlement of 21 this Litigation, the Court scheduled a Final Fairness Hearing for December 17, 2020.1 Also 22 pursuant to the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, Plaintiff Paul Izor timely moved for Final 23 Approval of the Class-Action Settlement and attorneys’ fees and expenses and a service award to 24 Class Representative, both of which came for hearing in Courtroom 2 – 4th Floor, Oakland 25 26 27 1 As used herein, unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms shall have the definitions and 28 meanings accorded to them in the Settlement and Amendment 1 thereto. 1

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-3 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 7

1 Division of the above-captioned Court on December 17, 2020. Having read all of the papers filed

2 in connection therewith, as well as all of the evidence and argument submitted with respect to the

3 proposed Settlement, the Court finds that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and

4 adequate. The Court therefore FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 5 1. The Court has personal jurisdiction over all Settlement Class Members, and the 6 Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to approve the Agreement, including all exhibits thereto. 7

8 2. The Notice and the Notice Plan implemented pursuant to the Agreement (1)

9 constitute the best practicable notice under the circumstances; (2) constitute notice that is

10 reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise members of the Settlement Class of the

11 pendency of the Litigation, their right to object to or exclude themselves from the proposed 12 Settlement, and to appear at the Final Approval Hearing; (3) are reasonable and constitute due, 13 adequate, and sufficient notice to all Persons entitled to receive notice; and (4) meet all applicable 14 requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Due Process Clause of the United States 15

16 Constitution, and the rules of the Court.

17 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and for purposes of this settlement only:

18 a. The Settlement Class consists of all regular users or subscribers of numbers

19 assigned to a cellular telephone service, paging service, specialized mobile radio 20 service, radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is 21 charged for the call to which a text message was transmitted by DoCircle, Inc. dba 22

23 Trumpia on behalf of Abacus Data Systems Inc. within four years of February 26,

24 2019. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judge presiding over this

25 action (or the Judge or Magistrate presiding over the action through which this 26 matter is presented for settlement), and members of their families; (2) the 27 Defendant, Defendant’s respective subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, 28 2 PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-3 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 7

1 predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a

2 controlling interest and its current or former officers and directors; (3) persons who

3 properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the

4 legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded person(s). 5 b. The Class is ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all members is 6 impracticable. The Class consists of thousands of class members and the Class 7

8 Members have been determined by objective means from Defendant’s records.

9 c. There are questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class, centered

10 around Defendant’s autodialed text messages to class members’ telephone

11 numbers. 12 d. The claims of the proposed class representative are typical of the claims of the 13 Class. The proposed class representative and each member of the proposed Class 14 are alleged to have suffered the same injury caused by the same course of conduct. 15

16 e. Plaintiff has fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of the

17 Class. Plaintiff is a member of the proposed Class. Neither Plaintiff nor his

18 counsel have any conflicts of interest with the other class members, and Class

19 Counsel have demonstrated that they have adequately represented the Class. 20 f. The questions of law or fact common to the members of the Class predominate 21 over any questions affecting only individual members. 22

23 g. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

24 adjudication of the controversy as the Settlement substantially benefits both the

25 litigants and the Court, and there are few manageability issues as settlement is 26 proposed rather than a further trial. 27 4. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the Settlement Agreement is, in all respects, fair, 28 3 PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-3 Filed 12/01/20 Page 4 of 7

1 reasonable, and adequate, and is in the best interests of all Class Members, taking into account the

2 following factors: (1) the strength of the plaintiff’s case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and

3 likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the

4 trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of 5 the proceedings; (6) the experience and view of counsel; and (7) the reaction of the class members 6 of the proposed settlement. 7

8 5. The plan for distribution of the Settlement Fund is fair and equitable. The

9 Settlement Administrator shall perform the distribution to Settlement Class Members following

10 the process set forth in the Settlement Agreement without further order of this Court.

11 6. Settlement Class Members have been given due and adequate notice of the 12 Settlement Agreement. 13 7. There are no objections from Settlement Class Members, but one non-Settlement 14 Class Member asserted an objection. Having considered the objection, and briefing and argument 15

16 thereon, the Court denies the objection and finds that it does not provide a basis for finding that

17 the settlement is not fair, reasonable, or adequate, or that an award of a service award to the

18 Plaintiff or attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel are inappropriate.

19 8. There are no opt-outs. 20 9. The Court has held a hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy 21 of the proposed settlement. 22

23 10. Having considered the motion for a service award, a class representative service

24 award in the amount of $______payable to Plaintiff is approved as fair and reasonable, in light

25 of the results that were obtained under the Settlement Agreement, and the risks that he incurred in 26 prosecuting the Action. The Court further finds that $______is a fair and reasonable incentive 27 award because of Plaintiff’s investment and involvement in all aspects of the litigation. The 28 4 PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-3 Filed 12/01/20 Page 5 of 7

1 award also comports with incentive awards made in other TCPA class-action settlements.

2 Accordingly, the Court approves that amount as the Service Award and directs that it be paid

3 pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

4 11. Under the Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel is permitted to seek Court 5 approval of attorneys’ fees and documented and reasonable expenses and costs. Having 6 considered Class Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and 7

8 considering the percentage of the fund, the quality of representation provided, the results

9 obtained, the risk of nonpayment, the time and effort invested, as well as a number of other

10 factors, Class Counsel is awarded attorneys’ fees of $______, reimbursement of costs and

11 expenses of $______, representing fair and reasonable compensation and reimbursement 12 for Class Counsel’s efforts in investigating, litigating and settling this action. 13 12. All payments of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses to Class Counsel 14 in this Action shall be made from the Settlement Fund, and the Released Parties shall have no 15

16 liability or responsibility for the payment of Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees or expenses except as

17 provided in the Settlement Agreement.

18 13. Accordingly, the Court hereby finally APPROVES the proposed settlement as

19 reflected in the Settlement Agreement, the respective terms of which, including but not limited to 20 the releases, are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 21 14. The Court having granted final approval to the Settlement Agreement, it is hereby 22

23 ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:

24 1. Immediately upon entry of this Final Judgment by the Clerk, this action shall be

25 closed according to the Court’s standard practices. 26 2. The Settlement Agreement is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to, and 27 in the best interests of, Settlement Class Members; the Parties and their counsel are directed to 28 5 PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-3 Filed 12/01/20 Page 6 of 7

1 implement and consummate the Agreement according to its terms and provisions; and the

2 Agreement is declared to be binding on, and have preclusive effect on all pending and future

3 lawsuits or other proceedings maintained by or on behalf of Representative Plaintiff and the

4 Releasing Parties. 5 3. The Parties are hereby directed to take all actions required under the terms and 6 provisions of the Settlement Agreement. 7

8 4. To the extent permitted by law and without affecting the other provisions of this

9 Final Judgment, this Final Judgment is intended by the Parties and the Court to be res judicata,

10 and to prohibit and preclude any prior, concurrent or subsequent litigation brought individually, or

11 in the name of, and/or otherwise on behalf of the Settlement Class Members with respect to any 12 and all claims, rights, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, debts, liens, contracts, liabilities, 13 agreements, costs, expenses or losses arising out of or relating to the claims released under the 14 Settlement Agreement. 15

16 5. All persons who are Settlement Class Members are bound by this Final Judgment

17 and are enjoined from instituting, maintaining, prosecuting, or enforcing, either directly or

18 indirectly, any claims discharged by the Settlement Agreement.

19 6. The Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over this action as to the following 20 matters: (i) enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (ii) issues relating to 21 settlement administration; and (iii) enforcement of this Judgment, the Final Approval Order, and 22

23 any order relating to attorneys’ fees or class representative award.

24 7. This Action (including all individual claims and Settlement Class Member claims

25 asserted therein) is hereby dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, without fees or costs to any 26 Party, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement. No just reason exists for delay in entering 27 this Final Judgment. 28 6 PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-3 Filed 12/01/20 Page 7 of 7

1

2 IT IS SO ORDERED, this __ day of ______, 2020.

3

4 ______Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 26 27 28 7 PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL CASE NO. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 91

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3 PAUL IZOR, Case No. 19-cv-01057-HSG 4 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, 5 v. ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND 6 ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE ABACUS DATA SYSTEMS, INC., PLAN 7 Defendant. 8 9 I, Cameron R. Azari, Esq., hereby declare and state as follows: 10 1. My name is Cameron R. Azari, Esq. I have personal knowledge of the matters set 11 forth herein or have knowledge based upon the actions of those individuals whom I supervise 12 in the ordinary course of my company’s business, and I believe them to be true and correct. 13 2. I am a nationally recognized expert in the field of legal notice and I have served as 14 an expert in dozens of federal and state cases involving class action notice plans. 15 3. I am the Director of Legal Notice for Hilsoft Notifications (“Hilsoft”), a firm that 16 specializes in designing, developing, analyzing and implementing large-scale, un-biased, legal 17 notification plans for class action settlements. Hilsoft is a business unit of Epiq Class Action 18 & Claims Solutions, Inc. (“Epiq”). For purposes of this declaration, Hilsoft and Epiq are 19 referred to collectively as “Epiq”. 20 4. Epiq has been involved with some of the most complex and significant notice 21 programs for class action settlements in recent history, examples of which are discussed below. 22 With experience in more than 450 class action cases, including more than 40 multi-district 23 litigations, Epiq has prepared notices that have appeared in 53 languages and have been 24 distributed in almost every country, territory, and dependency in the world. Courts have 25 recognized and approved numerous notice plans developed by Epiq in connection with class 26 action settlements, and those decisions have withstood appellate and collateral review. 27 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 1 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 91

1 EXPERIENCE 2 5. I have served as a notice expert and have been recognized and appointed by courts 3 to design and provide notice in many large and significant class action cases, including: 4 a) In re Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, 1:15-md-02599-FAM 5 (S.D. Fla), involved a $1.49 billion class action settlement with BMW, Mazda, Subaru, Toyota, 6 Honda, Nissan, and Ford regarding Takata airbags. The notice plans in those settlements 7 included individual mailed notice to more than 59.6 million potential class members and 8 extensive nationwide media via consumer publications, U.S. Territory newspapers, radio spots, 9 internet banners, mobile banners, and behaviorally targeted digital media. Combined, the notice 10 plans reached more than 95% of the adults aged 18+ in the United States who owned or leased 11 a vehicle equipped with a Takata airbag, 4.0 times each. 12 b) Hale v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., 12-cv- 13 00660 (S.D. Ill.), involved a $250 million settlement with approximately 4.7 million class 14 members. The extensive notice program provided individual notice via postcard or email to 15 approximately 1.43 million class members and implemented a robust publication program 16 which, combined with individual notice, reached approximately 78.8% of all the adults aged 17 35+ in the United States approximately 2.4 times each. 18 c) In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices and Product 19 Liability Litigation (Bosch Settlement), MDL No. 2672 (N.D. Cal.), involved a comprehensive 20 notice program that provided individual notice to more than 946,000 vehicle owner class 21 members via first-class mail and to more than 855,000 vehicle owner class members via email. 22 A targeted internet campaign further enhanced the notice effort. 23 d) In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust 24 Litigation, MDL No. 1720 (E.D.N.Y.), involved a $6.05 billion settlement with Visa and 25 MasterCard in 2012 that had an intensive notice program. The intensive notice program 26 included over 19.8 million direct mail notices to class members together with insertions in over 27 1,500 newspapers, consumer magazines, national business publications, trade and specialty 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 2 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 91

1 publications, and language and ethnic-targeted publications. Epiq also implemented an 2 extensive online notice campaign with banner notices, which generated more than 770 million 3 adult impressions, a settlement website in eight languages, and acquisition of sponsored search 4 listings to facilitate class members locating the website. For the subsequent superseding $5.54 5 billion settlement with Visa and MasterCard in 2019, Epiq implemented an extensive notice 6 program, which included over 16.3 million direct mail notices to class members together with 7 over 354 print publication units and banner notices, which generated more than 689 million 8 adult impressions. 9 e) In Re: Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 10 3:15-md-2633 (D. Ore.), involved an extensive individual class action notice program, which 11 included 8.6 million double-postcard notices and 1.4 million email notices. The notices 12 informed class members of a $32 million settlement for a “security incident” regarding class 13 members’ personal information stored in Premera’s computer network, which was 14 compromised. The individual notice efforts reached 93.3% of the class. A settlement website, 15 an informational release, and a geo-targeted publication notice further enhanced the notice 16 efforts to class members. 17 f) In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, 18 on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179 (E.D. La.), involved a dual landmark class action settlement 19 notice program to distinct “Economic and Property Damages” and “Medical Benefits” classes 20 for BP’s $7.8 billion settlement of claims related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Notice 21 efforts included more than 7,900 television spots, 5,200 radio spots, and 5,400 print insertions 22 and reached over 95% of Gulf Coast residents. 23 g) In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036 (S.D. Fla.), 24 involved multiple bank class action settlements between 2010-2020. The notice programs 25 involved direct mail and email to millions of class members, as well as publication in relevant 26 local newspapers. Representative banks of the more than 20 banks involved in the class action 27 settlements included Fifth Third Bank, National City Bank, Bank of Oklahoma, Webster Bank, 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 3 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 4 of 91

1 Harris Bank, M & I Bank, PNC Bank, Compass Bank, Commerce Bank, Citizens Bank, Great 2 Western Bank, TD Bank, BancorpSouth, Comerica Bank, Susquehanna Bank, Associated Bank, 3 Capital One, M&T Bank, Iberiabank, and Synovuss. 4 6. Courts have recognized my testimony and the testimony of others at Epiq involved 5 in class action notice programs regarding the method of notification that is appropriate for a 6 given case, and I have provided testimony on numerous occasions on whether a certain method 7 of notice represents the best notice practicable under the circumstances. For example: 8 a) In In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust 9 Litigation, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. NY.), based upon my testimony, Judge Margo K. Brodie ruled 10 on December 13, 2019: 11 The notice and exclusion procedures provided to the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class, including but not limited to the methods of identifying 12 and notifying members of the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class, were fair, adequate, and sufficient, constituted the best practicable notice under the 13 circumstances, and were reasonably calculated to apprise members of the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class of the Action, the terms of the 14 Superseding Settlement Agreement, and their objection rights, and to apprise members of the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class of their exclusion 15 rights, and fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any other applicable laws or rules of the Court, 16 and due process. 17 b) In In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation (Ford), MDL No. 18 2599 (S.D. Fla.), based upon my testimony, Judge Federico A. Moreno ruled on December 20, 19 2018: The record shows and the Court finds that the Class Notice has been 20 given to the Class in the manner approved by the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order. The Court finds that such Class Notice: (i) is reasonable 21 and constitutes the best practicable notice to Class Members under the circumstances; (ii) constitutes notice that was reasonably calculated, 22 under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of the pendency of the Action and the terms of the Settlement Agreement, their right to 23 exclude themselves from the Class or to object to all or any part of the Settlement Agreement, their right to appear at the Fairness Hearing 24 (either on their own or through counsel hired at their own expense) and the binding effect of the orders and Final Order and Final Judgment in 25 the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, on all persons and entities who or which do not exclude themselves from the Class; (iii) constitutes 26 due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons or entities entitled to receive notice; and (iv) fully satisfied the requirements of the United 27 States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), FED. R. Civ. P. 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 4 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 5 of 91

23 and any other applicable law as well as complying with the Federal 1 Judicial Center's illustrative class action notices. 2 c) In Hale v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., 3:12- 3 cv-00660-DRH-SCW (S.D. Ill.), based upon my testimony, Judge Herndon ruled on December 4 16, 2018: The Class here is estimated to include approximately 4.7 million 5 members. Approximately 1.43 million of them received individual postcard or email notice of the terms of the proposed Settlement, and the 6 rest were notified via a robust publication program “estimated to reach 78.8% of all U.S. Adults Aged 35+ approximately 2.4 times.” Doc. 966- 7 2 ¶¶ 26, 41. The Court previously approved the notice plan (Doc. 947), and now, having carefully reviewed the declaration of the Notice 8 Administrator (Doc. 966-2), concludes that it was fully and properly executed, and reflected “the best notice that is practicable under the 9 circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). 10 The Court further concludes that CAFA notice was properly effectuated to the attorneys general and insurance commissioners of all 50 states 11 and District of Columbia. 12 d) In Vergara, et al., v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 1:15-CV-06972 (N.D. Ill.), 13 based upon my testimony, Judge Thomas M. Durkin ruled on March 1, 2018:

14 The Court finds that the Notice Plan set forth in Section IX of the Settlement Agreement and effectuated pursuant to the Preliminary 15 Approval Order constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to the 16 Settlement Classes of the pendency of this case, certification of the Settlement Classes for settlement purposes only, the terms of the 17 Settlement Agreement, and the Final Approval Hearing, and satisfies the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States 18 Constitution, and any other applicable law. Further, the Court finds that Defendant has timely satisfied the notice requirements of 28 U.S.C. 19 Section 1715. 20 e) In In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices and 21 Products Liability Litigation (Bosch Settlement), MDL No. 2672 (N.D. Cal.), based upon my 22 testimony, Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled on May 17, 2017:

23 The Court is satisfied that the Notice Program was reasonably calculated to notify Class Members of the proposed Settlement. The 24 Notice “apprise[d] interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford[ed] them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. 25 Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Indeed, the Notice Administrator reports that the notice delivery rate of 97.04% 26 “exceed[ed] the expected range and is indicative of the extensive address 27 updating and re-mailing protocols used.” (Dkt. No. 3188-2 ¶ 24.) 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 5 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 6 of 91

1 f) In Chimeno-Buzzi v. Hollister Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Co., No. 14- 2 23120 (S.D. Fla.), based upon my testimony, Judge Marcia G. Cooke ruled on April 11, 2016:

3 Pursuant to the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator, Epiq Systems, Inc. [Hilsoft Notifications], has complied 4 with the approved notice process as confirmed in its Declaration filed with the Court on March 23, 2016. The Court finds that the notice 5 process was designed to advise Class Members of their rights. The form and method for notifying Class Members of the settlement and its terms 6 and conditions was in conformity with this Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 23(c)(2)(B), the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715, and due process under the United States Constitution and other 8 applicable laws. 9 g) In Rose v. Bank of America Corporation, and FIA Card Services, N.A., Nos. 10 5:11-CV-02390-EJD; 5:12-CV-04009-EJD (N.D. Cal.), based upon my testimony, Judge 11 Edward J. Davila ruled on August 29, 2014:

12 The Court finds that the notice was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise the Settlement Class of the pendency of this 13 action, all material elements of the Settlement, the opportunity for Settlement Class Members to exclude themselves from, object to, or 14 comment on the settlement and to appear at the final approval hearing. The notice was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, 15 satisfying the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B); provided notice in a reasonable manner to all class members, satisfying Rule 23(e)(1)(B); 16 was adequate and sufficient notice to all Class Members; and, complied fully with the laws of the United States and of the Federal Rules of Civil 17 Procedure, due process and any other applicable rules of court. 18 h) In In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of 19 Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179 (E.D. La.), based upon my testimony, Judge Carl J. 20 Barbier ruled on January 11, 2013:

21 The Court finds that the Class Notice and Class Notice Plan satisfied and continue to satisfy the applicable requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 23(c)(2)(b) and 23(e), the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. § 1711 et seq.), and the Due Process Clause of the United States 23 Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. V), constituting the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances of this litigation. 24 The notice program surpassed the requirements of Due Process, Rule 23, 25 and CAFA. Based on the factual elements of the Notice Program as detailed below, the Notice Program surpassed all of the requirements of 26 Due Process, Rule 23, and CAFA.

27 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 6 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 7 of 91

1 The media notice effort alone reached an estimated 95% of adults in the Gulf region an average of 10.3 times each, and an estimated 83% of all 2 adults in the United States an average of 4 times each. These figures do not include notice efforts that cannot be measured, such as 3 advertisements in trade publications and sponsored search engine listings. The Notice Program fairly and adequately covered and notified 4 the class without excluding any demographic group or geographic area, and it exceeded the reach percentage achieved in most other court- 5 approved notice programs. 6 7. Numerous other court opinions and comments regarding my testimony, and the 7 adequacy of Epiq’s notice efforts, are included in Epiq’s curriculum vitae attached hereto as 8 Attachment 1. 9 8. In forming expert opinions, my staff and I draw from our in-depth class action case 10 experience, as well as our educational and related work experiences. I am an active member of 11 the Oregon State Bar, having received my Bachelor of Science from Willamette University and 12 my Juris Doctor from Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College. I have served 13 as the Director of Legal Notice for Epiq since 2008 and have overseen the detailed planning 14 and implementation of virtually all of Epiq’s court-approved notice programs during that time. 15 Before assuming my current role with Epiq, I served in a similar role as Director of Epiq Legal 16 Noticing (previously called Huntington Legal Advertising). Overall, I have over 20 years of 17 experience in the design and implementation of legal notification and claims administration 18 programs, having been personally involved in hundreds of successful notice programs.

19 OVERVIEW 20 9. The facts in this declaration are based on what I personally know, as well as 21 information provided to me in the ordinary course of my business by my colleagues at Epiq, 22 who assisted with developing and implementing this class action notification program. This 23 declaration will describe the implementation of the Settlement Notice Plan (“Notice Plan” or 24 “Plan”) for the settlement in Izor v. Abacus Data Systems, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-01057, in the 25 United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 26 10. On August 24, 2020, the Court entered an Order Granting Motion for Preliminary 27 Approval for Class Action Settlement (“Preliminary Approval Order”). In the Preliminary 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 7 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 8 of 91

1 Approval Order, the Court approved the Settlement Class definition, which is defined in the 2 Settlement Agreement as:

3 [A]ll regular users or subscribers of numbers assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, 4 radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call to which a text message was transmitted by 5 Trumpia on behalf of Defendant within four years of February 26, 2019. 6 11. After entry of the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, Epiq began to implement 7 the Notice Plan. This declaration will detail the successful implementation of the Notice Plan 8 the Court preliminarily approved and will also outline the administration of the settlement to 9 date. 10 12. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure directs that the best notice 11 practicable under the circumstances must include “individual notice to all members who can be 12 identified through reasonable effort.”1 The Notice Plan here satisfied this requirement. A 13 Postcard Notice was mailed via first-class mail to all identified Settlement Class Members with 14 an available mailing address. Nationwide Banner Notices supplemented the individual notice 15 effort and helped reach Settlement Class Members who may not have seen the individual notice. 16 A settlement website provided further notice of the settlement. 17 13. In my opinion, the Notice Plan as designed and implemented reached the greatest 18 practicable number of Settlement Class Members through the use of individual notice and 19 Banner Notices, as such, was the best notice practicable under the circumstances of this case 20 and met the requirements of due process, including its “desire to actually inform” requirement.2 21

22

23

24 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). 2 25 “But when notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might 26 reasonably adopt to accomplish it. The reasonableness and hence the constitutional validity of any chosen method may be defended on the ground that it is in itself reasonably certain to inform 27 those affected . . . .” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315 (1950). 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 8 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 9 of 91

1 CAFA NOTICE 2 14. As described in the Declaration of Stephanie J. Fiereck, Esq. on Implementation of 3 CAFA Notice, dated August 31, 2020 (“Fiereck Declaration”), Epiq sent a CAFA notice packet 4 (or “CAFA Notice”), on behalf of the Defendant—as required by the federal Class Action 5 Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1715. On June 26, 2020, Epiq sent a CAFA Notice 6 to 57 federal and state officials. The CAFA Notice was mailed by United States Postal Service 7 (“USPS”) certified mail to 56 officials, including the Attorneys General of each of the 50 states, 8 the District of Columbia, and the United States Territories. The CAFA Notice was also sent by 9 United Parcel Service (“UPS”) to the Attorney General of the United States. A copy of the 10 Fiereck Declaration is included as Attachment 2. 11 NOTICE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

12 Individual Notice 13 15. On June 25, 2020, Epiq received one data file from counsel, which contained 14 18,719 telephone numbers for Settlement Class Members. All records with a telephone number 15 were sent to a third-party to perform “reverse look-ups.” The reverse look-ups process is used 16 to identify whether an available associated physical address exists for each telephone number. 17 For those records that the reverse look-up process successfully identified a name and physical 18 address, this information was returned to Epiq. The reverse look-ups process resulted in 19 identifying name and physical mailing addresses for 16,820 Settlement Class Members. 20 Individual Notice – Postcard Notice 21 16. On September 18, 2020, Epiq mailed 16,820 Postcard Notices via first-class mail 22 to all identifiable Settlement Class Members. The Postcard Notice directed the Settlement Class 23 Members to the settlement website and also provided contact information for the Settlement 24 Administrator, including a telephone number for inquiries. A copy of the Postcard Notice as 25 printed and mailed is included as Attachment 3. 26 17. Prior to mailing the Postcard Notice, mailing addresses were checked against the 27 National Change of Address (“NCOA”) database maintained by the United States Postal 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 9 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 10 of 91

1 Service (“USPS”). The NCOA contains records of all reported permanent moves for the past 2 four (4) years. In addition, the addresses were certified via the Coding Accuracy Support 3 System (“CASS”) to ensure the quality of the zip code, and also verified through Delivery Point 4 Validation (“DPV”) to verify the accuracy of the addresses in the records. This address 5 updating process is standard for the industry and for the majority of promotional mailings that 6 occur today. 7 18. The return address on the Postcard Notices is a post office box maintained by Epiq. 8 The USPS automatically forwards Postcard Notices with an available forwarding address order 9 that has not expired (“Postal Forwards”). For Postcard Notices returned as undeliverable, Epiq 10 re-mails the Notice to any new address available through the USPS information (for example, 11 to the address provided by the USPS on returned pieces for which the automatic forwarding 12 order has expired, but which is still during the period in which the USPS returns the piece with 13 the address indicated). Epiq also obtains better addresses by using a third-party lookup service. 14 Upon successfully locating better addresses, Postcard Notices are promptly re-mailed. 15 19. As of November 30, 2020, the USPS has sent 306 Postal Forwards. As of 16 November 30, 2020, Epiq has received 1,105 undeliverable Postcard Notices and has re-mailed 17 558 Postcard Notices for addresses that were corrected through the USPS or for addresses that 18 were obtained by additional public record research using a third-party lookup service after 19 Postcard Notices were returned as undeliverable. 20 20. As of November 30, 2020, a Postcard Notice was delivered to 16,270 of the 16,820 21 Settlement Class Members for whom mailing address data was available - a deliverable rate of 22 96.7%. Overall, individual notice reached approximately 86.9% of the 18,719 Settlement Class 23 Members. 24 Banner Notices 25 21. Internet advertising has become a standard component in legal notice 26 programs. The internet has proven to be an efficient and cost-effective method to target and 27 provide measurable reach of persons covered by a settlement. Banner Notices are image-based 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 10 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 11 of 91

1 graphic displays available on desktops and mobile devices. These ads are used to notify people 2 of a class action settlement potentially relevant to them. The text of the Banner Notices allowed 3 users to identify themselves as potential Settlement Class Members and directly linked them to 4 the settlement website for more information. 5 22. The targeted internet campaign that Epiq implemented included Banner Notices 6 measuring 300 x 250 pixels, 728 x 90 pixels, 300 x 600 pixels, and 970 x 250 pixels purchased 7 through the Google Display Network. The Google Display Network represents thousands of 8 digital properties – including inventory on both desktop and mobile devices – across all major 9 content categories. Epiq also placed Banner Notices on Facebook (as newsfeed and right-hand 10 side ads). 11 23. Epiq ran the Banner Notices from September 18, 2020, through October 17, 2020. 12 During this time, the Banner Notices generated approximately 112.7 million impressions 13 nationwide. The Banner Notices, combined with the 86.9% individual notice reach, resulted in 14 a total reach of approximately 90.7% to the 18,719 Settlement Class Members. 15 24. Clicking the Banner Notices took the individuals to the settlement website. 16 Examples of the Banner Notices are attached as Attachment 4. 17 Settlement Website, Toll-free Telephone Number and Postal Mailing Address 18 25. On September 17, 2020, Epiq created a dedicated settlement website for the 19 settlement (www.AdstcpaSettlement.com). At the settlement website, Settlement Class 20 Members are able to obtain detailed information about the case and review documents related 21 to the Settlement including the Long Form Notice, the Claim Form, the Settlement Agreement, 22 the Preliminary Approval Order, and other documents. Answers to Frequently Asked Questions 23 (FAQs) are also available on the settlement website. Settlement Class Members can also file a 24 claim at the settlement website. The settlement website address was displayed prominently in 25 all the Notices described above. A copy of the Long Form Notice is included as Attachment 5. 26 26. As of November 30, 2020, there have been 34,247 unique visitors to the settlement 27 website and 131,023 website page views presented. 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 11 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 12 of 91

1 27. On September 16, 2020, Epiq established a toll-free telephone number 2 (1-855-917-3577) for the case to allow Settlement Class Members to call for additional 3 information about the Settlement, listen to answers to FAQs, or request that a Long Form 4 Notice be mailed to them, among other things. This automated phone system is available 24 5 hours per day, 7 days per week. As of November 30, 2020, Epiq handled 109 calls to the toll- 6 free number for a total of 252 minutes.

7 28. Epiq also established a postal mailing address to allow Settlement Class Members 8 to request additional information or ask questions about the Settlement. Both the toll-free 9 telephone number and the postal mailing address were included on the Notices and the 10 settlement website.

11 Exclusions and Objections 12 29. The deadline to request exclusion from the settlement or to object to the settlement 13 was November 17, 2020. As of November 30, 2020, Epiq has received no requests for exclusion 14 from the settlement. As of November 30, 2020, I am aware of one objection to the settlement. 15 It is my understanding that the objector does not appear to be a Settlement Class Member, as 16 the individual’s telephone number was not included in the Settlement Class Member original 17 data provided to Epiq by counsel and there is no record matching the individual’s name or 18 address.

19 Status of Claims Process 20 30. As of November 30, 2020, Epiq has received 2,793 Claim Forms (878 online and 21 1,915 paper). Since the postmark deadline for filing a claim was November 17, 2020, it is likely 22 Epiq will continue to receive and process timely and late claims forms received after the 23 November 17, 2020, deadline (it is common to receive timely postmarked claims upwards of 24 10 business days after a claims filing deadline, especially this year with USPS mail handling 25 and delivery delays). As a result, the claim statistics are not final and are subject to further 26 updates.

27 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 12 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 13 of 91

1 ADMINISTRATION FEES 2 31. As of November 30, 2020, total administration costs are $90,000. Epiq estimates 3 that total administration costs will be approximately $105,000. This includes the originally- 4 estimated amount of Administrative Fees plus the originally estimated amounts associated with 5 the Banner Notices. Included in this anticipated cost to completion is the cost for Epiq to fulfill 6 its remaining administrative duties, which include claims processing, providing notice of any 7 deficiencies in claims, receiving and responding to class member communications, 8 disbursement of Settlement Payments to eligible Settlement Class Members by First Class U.S. 9 Mail, and check reissues. 10 CONCLUSION 11 32. In class action notice planning, execution, and analysis, Hilsoft and Epiq are guided 12 by due process considerations under the United States Constitution, by federal and local rules 13 and statutes, and further by case law pertaining to notice. This framework directs that a class 14 action notice program be designed to reach the greatest practicable number of potential class 15 members and that the notice or notice program itself not limit knowledge of the availability of 16 settlement benefits—nor the ability to exercise other options—to class members in any way. 17 All of these requirements were met in this case. 18 33. The Notice Plan followed the guidance for how to satisfy due process obligations 19 that a notice expert gleans from the United States Supreme Court’s seminal decisions which 20 are: a) to endeavor to actually inform the class members, and b) to demonstrate that notice is 21 reasonably calculated to do so: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 13 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 14 of 91

A. “But when notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not 1 due process. The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it,” Mullane v. 2 Central Hanover Trust, 339 U.S. 306, 315 (1950). 3 B. “[N]otice must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an 4 opportunity to present their objections,” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 174 (1974) (citing Mullane at 314). 5 34. As described above, Notice reached approximately 90.7% of the Settlement Class, 6 (individual notice on its own reached 86.9% of the Settlement Class). Many courts have 7 accepted and understood that anything over a 70% reach is adequate. In 2010, the Federal 8 Judicial Center issued a Judges’ Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain 9 Language Guide. This Guide states that “the lynchpin in an objective determination of the 10 adequacy of a proposed notice effort is whether all the notice efforts together will reach a high 11 percentage of the class. It is reasonable to reach between 70–95%.” The Notice Plan here as 12 implemented achieved a reach to the Settlement Class at the high end of this range. 13 35. The Notice Plan described above provided the best notice practicable under the 14 circumstances of this case, conformed to all aspects of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and 15 comported with the guidance for effective notice articulated in the Manual for Complex Litigation 16 4th. 17 36. The Notice Plan schedule afforded enough time to provide full and proper notice to 18 Settlement Class Members before the exclusion and objection deadlines. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 20 December 1, 2020. 21 22

23 Cameron R. Azari, Esq. 24

25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. AZARI, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADEQUACY OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN 14 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 15 of 91

Attachment 1 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 16 of 91

Hilsoft Notifications is a leading provider of legal notice services for large-scale class action and bankruptcy matters. We specialize in providing quality, expert, notice plan development – designing notice programs that satisfy due process requirements and withstand judicial scrutiny. Hilsoft Notifications (“Hilsoft”) has been retained by defendants and/or plaintiffs for more than 450 cases, including more than 40 MDL cases, with notices appearing in more than 53 languages and in almost every country, territory and dependency in the world. For more than 25 years, Hilsoft’s notice plans have been approved and upheld by courts. Case examples include:

 Hilsoft designed and implemented monumental notice campaigns to notify current or former owners or lessees of certain BMW, Mazda, Subaru, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and Ford vehicles as part of $1.49 billion in settlements regarding Takata airbags. The Notice Plans included individual mailed notice to more than 59.6 million potential class members and notice via consumer publications, U.S. Territory newspapers, radio spots, internet banners, mobile banners, and behaviorally targeted digital media. Combined, the Notice Plans reached more than 95% of adults aged 18+ in the U.S. who owned or leased a subject vehicle with a frequency of 4.0 times each. In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation (OEMS – BMW, Mazda, Subaru, Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Ford), MDL No. 2599 (S.D. Fla.).

 For a landmark $6.05 billion settlement reached by Visa and MasterCard in 2012, Hilsoft implemented an intensive notice program, which included over 19.8 million direct mail notices to class members together with insertions in over 1,500 newspapers, consumer magazines, national business publications, trade and specialty publications, and language & ethnic targeted publications. Hilsoft also implemented an extensive online notice campaign with banner notices, which generated more than 770 million adult impressions, a settlement website in eight languages, and acquisition of sponsored search listings to facilitate locating the website. For the subsequent superseding $5.54 billion settlement reached by Visa and MasterCard in 2019, Hilsoft implemented an extensive notice program, which included over 16.3 million direct mail notices to class members together with over 354 print publication units and banner notices, which generated more than 689 million adult impressions. In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, 05-MD-1720, MDL No. 1720 (E.D.N.Y.).  For a $250 million settlement with approximately 4.7 million class members, Hilsoft designed and implemented a notice program with individual notice via postcard or email to approximately 1.43 million class members and a robust publication program, which combined, reached approximately 78.8% of all U.S. adults aged 35+ approximately 2.4 times each. Hale v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., 12-cv-00660 (S.D. Ill.).

 Hilsoft designed and implemented an extensive individual notice program, which included 8.6 million double- postcard notices and 1.4 million email notices. The notices informed class members of a $32 million settlement for a “security incident” regarding class members’ personal information stored in Premera’s computer network, which was compromised. The individual notice efforts reached 93.3% of the settlement class. A settlement website, an informational release, and a geo-targeted publication notice further enhanced the notice efforts. In Re: Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 3:15-md-2633 (D. Ore.).

 Hilsoft designed a notice program that included extensive data acquisition and mailed notice to inform owners and lessees of specific models of Mercedes-Benz vehicles. The notice program designed and implemented by Hilsoft reached approximately 96.5% of all class members. Callaway v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 8:14-cv-02011 (C.D. Cal.).

 For a $20 million TCPA settlement that involved Uber, Hilsoft created a notice program, which resulted in notice via mail or email to more than 6.9 million identifiable class members. The combined measurable effort reached approximately 90.6% of the settlement class with direct mail and email, newspaper and internet banner ads. Vergara, et al., v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 1:15-CV-06972 (N.D. Ill.).

PORTLAND OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD, BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697 WWW.HILSOFT.COM [email protected] Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 17 of 91

 A comprehensive notice program within the Volkswagen Emissions Litigation that provided individual notice to more than 946,000 vehicle owners via first class mail and to more than 855,000 vehicle owners via email. A targeted internet campaign further enhanced the notice effort. In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation (Bosch Settlement), MDL No. 2672 (N.D. Cal.).

 An extensive notice effort regarding asbestos personal injury claims and rights as to Debtors’ Joint Plan of Reorganization and Disclosure Statement that was designed and implemented by Hilsoft. The notice program included nationwide consumer print publications, trade and union labor publications, internet banner advertising, an informational release, and a website. In re: Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., el al., 16-31602 (Bankr. W.D. N.C.).

 Hilsoft designed and implemented an extensive settlement notice plan for a class period spanning more than 40 years for smokers of light cigarettes. The notice plan delivered a measured reach of approximately 87.8% of Arkansas adults 25+ with a frequency of 8.9 times and approximately 91.1% of Arkansas adults 55+ with a frequency of 10.8 times. Hispanic newspaper notice, an informational release, radio public service announcements (“PSAs”), sponsored search listings and a case website further enhanced reach. Miner v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 60CV03-4661 (Ark. Cir.).

 One of the largest claim deadline notice campaigns ever implemented, for BP’s $7.8 billion settlement claim deadline relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Hilsoft designed and implemented the claim deadline notice program, which resulted in a combined measurable paid print, television, radio and internet effort, which reached in excess of 90% of adults aged 18+ in the 26 identified DMAs covering the Gulf Coast Areas an average of 5.5 times each. In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179 (E.D. La.).

 A large asbestos bar date notice effort, which included individual notice, national consumer publications, hundreds of local and national newspapers, Spanish newspapers, union labor publications, and digital media to reach the target audience. In re: Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al. (Asbestos Claims Bar Date Notice), 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del.).

 BP’s $7.8 billion settlement of claims related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill emerged from possibly the most complex class action case in U.S. history. Hilsoft drafted and opined on all forms of notice. The 2012 dual notice program to distinct “Economic and Property Damages” and “Medical Benefits” settlement classes designed by Hilsoft reached at least 95% Gulf Coast region adults via more than 7,900 television spots, 5,200 radio spots, 5,400 print insertions in newspapers, consumer publications, and trade journals, digital media, and individual notice. In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179 (E.D. La.).

 Overdraft fee class actions have been brought against nearly every major U.S. commercial bank. For related settlements from 2010-2020, Hilsoft has developed programs that integrate individual notice and in some cases paid media efforts. Fifth Third Bank, National City Bank, Bank of Oklahoma, Webster Bank, Harris Bank, M& I Bank, PNC Bank, Compass Bank, Commerce Bank, Citizens Bank, Great Western Bank, TD Bank, BancorpSouth, Comerica Bank, Susquehanna Bank, Associated Bank, Capital One, M&T Bank, Iberiabank and Synovus are among the more than 20 banks that have retained Hilsoft. In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036 (S.D. Fla.).

 Hilsoft provided notice for one of the largest data breaches in U.S. history with approximately 130 million credit and debit card numbers stolen. In re Heartland Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2046 (S.D. Tex.).

 For one of the largest and most complex class action case in Canadian history, Hilsoft designed and implemented groundbreaking notice to disparate, remote indigenous people in the multi-billion dollar settlement. In re Residential Schools Class Action Litigation, 00-CV-192059 CPA (Ont. Super. Ct.).

 Extensive point of sale notice program of a settlement, which provided payments of up to $100,000 related to Chinese drywall – 100 million notices distributed to Lowe’s purchasers during a six-week period. Vereen v. Lowe’s Home Centers, SU10-CV-2267B (Ga. Super. Ct.).

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

2 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 18 of 91

LEGAL NOTICING EXPERTS

Cameron Azari, Esq., Director of Legal Notice Cameron Azari, Esq. has more than 20 years of experience in the design and implementation of legal notice and claims administration programs. He is a nationally recognized expert in the creation of class action notification campaigns in compliance with Fed R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) (d)(2) and (e) and similar state class action statutes. Cameron has been responsible for hundreds of legal notice and advertising programs. During his career, he has been involved in an array of high profile class action matters, including In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation (MasterCard & Visa), In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation (Bosch Settlement), In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, and In re Residential Schools Class Action Litigation. He is an active author and speaker on a broad range of legal notice and class action topics ranging from amendments to FRCP Rule 23 to email noticing, response rates and optimizing settlement effectiveness. Cameron is an active member of the Oregon State Bar. He received his B.S. from Willamette University and his J.D. from Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College. Cameron can be reached at [email protected].

Lauran Schultz, Epiq Managing Director Lauran Schultz consults with Hilsoft clients on complex noticing issues. Lauran has more than 20 years of experience as a professional in the marketing and advertising field, specializing in legal notice and class action administration since 2005. High profile actions he has been involved in include companies such as BP, Bank of America, Fifth Third Bank, Symantec Corporation, Lowe’s Home Centers, First Health, Apple, TJX, CNA and Carrier Corporation. Prior to joining Epiq in 2005, Lauran was a Senior Vice President of Marketing at National City Bank in Cleveland, Ohio. Lauran’s education includes advanced study in political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison along with a Ford Foundation fellowship from the Social Science Research Council and American Council of Learned Societies. Lauran can be reached at [email protected].

Kyle Bingham, Manager of Strategic Communications Kyle Bingham has 14 years of experience in the advertising industry. At Hilsoft and Epiq, Kyle is responsible for overseeing the research, planning, and execution of advertising campaigns for legal notice programs including class action, bankruptcy and other legal cases. Kyle has been involved in the design and implementation of numerous legal notice campaigns, including In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation (Bosch), In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation (MasterCard & Visa), In re: Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al. (Asbestos Claims Bar Notice), In re: Residential Schools Class Action Litigation, Hale v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. Prior to joining Epiq and Hilsoft, Kyle worked at Wieden+Kennedy for seven years, an industry-leading advertising agency where he planned and purchased print, digital and broadcast media, and presented strategy and media campaigns to clients for multi-million dollar branding campaigns and regional direct response initiatives. He received his B.A. from Willamette University. Kyle can be reached at [email protected].

ARTICLES AND PRESENTATIONS

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Consumers and Class Action Notices: An FTC Workshop.” Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, October 29, 2019.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “The New Outlook for Automotive Class Action Litigation: Coattails, Recalls, and Loss of Value/Diminution Cases.” ACI’s Automotive Product Liability Litigation Conference.” American Conference Institute, Chicago, IL, July 18, 2019.

 Cameron Azari Moderator, “Prepare for the Future of Automotive Class Actions.” Bloomberg Next, Webinar-CLE, November 6, 2018.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “The Battleground for Class Certification: Plaintiff and Defense Burdens, Commonality Requirements and Ascertainability.” 30th National Forum on Consumer Finance Class Actions and Government Enforcement, Chicago, IL, July 17, 2018.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

3 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 19 of 91

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Recent Developments in Class Action Notice and Claims Administration.” PLI's Class Action Litigation 2018 Conference, New York, NY, June 21, 2018.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “One Class Action or 50? Choice of Law Considerations as Potential Impediment to Nationwide Class Action Settlements.” 5th Annual Western Regional CLE Program on Class Actions and Mass Torts. Clyde & Co LLP, San Francisco, CA, June 22, 2018.

 Cameron Azari Co-Author, A Practical Guide to Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Publication Notice. E-book, published, May 2017.

 Cameron Azari Featured Speaker, “Proposed Changes to Rule 23 Notice and Scrutiny of Claim Filing Rates,” DC Consumer Class Action Lawyers Luncheon, December 6, 2016.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Recent Developments in Consumer Class Action Notice and Claims Administration." Berman DeValerio Litigation Group, San Francisco, CA, June 8, 2016.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “2016 Cybersecurity & Privacy Summit. Moving From ‘Issue Spotting’ To Implementing a Mature Risk Management Model.” King & Spalding, Atlanta, GA, April 25, 2016.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Live Cyber Incident Simulation Exercise.” Advisen’s Cyber Risk Insights Conference, London, UK, February 10, 2015.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Pitfalls of Class Action Notice and Claims Administration.” PLI's Class Action Litigation 2014 Conference, New York, NY, July 9, 2014.

 Cameron Azari Co-Author, “What You Need to Know About Frequency Capping In Online Class Action Notice Programs.” Class Action Litigation Report, June 2014.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Class Settlement Update – Legal Notice and Court Expectations.” PLI's 19th Annual Consumer Financial Services Institute Conference, New York, NY, April 7-8, 2014 and Chicago, IL, April 28-29, 2014.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Legal Notice in Consumer Finance Settlements - Recent Developments.” ACI’s Consumer Finance Class Actions and Litigation, New York, NY, January 29-30, 2014.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Legal Notice in Building Products Cases.” HarrisMartin’s Construction Product Litigation Conference, Miami, FL, October 25, 2013.

 Cameron Azari Co-Author, “Class Action Legal Noticing: Plain Language Revisited.” Law360, April 2013.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Legal Notice in Consumer Finance Settlements Getting your Settlement Approved.” ACI’s Consumer Finance Class Actions and Litigation, New York, NY, January 31-February 1, 2013.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Perspectives from Class Action Claims Administrators: Email Notices and Response Rates.” CLE International’s 8th Annual Class Actions Conference, Los Angeles, CA, May 17-18, 2012.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Class Action Litigation Trends: A Look into New Cases, Theories of Liability & Updates on the Cases to Watch.” ACI’s Consumer Finance Class Actions and Litigation, New York, NY, January 26-27, 2012.

 Lauran Schultz Speaker, “Legal Notice Best Practices: Building a Workable Settlement Structure.” CLE International’s 7th Annual Class Action Conference, San Francisco, CA, May 2011.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Data Breaches Involving Consumer Financial Information: Litigation Exposures and Settlement Considerations.” ACI’s Consumer Finance Class Actions and Litigation, New York, NY, January 2011.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

4 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 20 of 91

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Notice in Consumer Class Actions: Adequacy, Efficiency and Best Practices.” CLE International’s 5th Annual Class Action Conference: Prosecuting and Defending Complex Litigation, San Francisco, CA, 2009.

 Lauran Schultz Speaker, “Efficiency and Adequacy Considerations in Class Action Media Notice Programs.” Chicago Bar Association, Chicago, IL, 2009.

 Cameron Azari Author, “Clearing the Five Hurdles of Email - Delivery of Class Action Legal Notices.” Thomson Reuters Class Action Litigation Reporter, June 2008.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Planning for a Smooth Settlement.” ACI: Class Action Defense – Complex Settlement Administration for the Class Action Litigator, Phoenix, AZ, 2007.  Cameron Azari Speaker, “Structuring a Litigation Settlement.” CLE International’s 3rd Annual Conference on Class Actions, Los Angeles, CA, 2007.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Noticing and Response Rates in Class Action Settlements” – Class Action Bar Gathering, Vancouver, British Columbia, 2007.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Notice and Response Rates in Class Action Settlements” – Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, New York, NY, 2006.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Notice and Response Rates in Class Action Settlements” – Bridgeport Continuing Legal Education, Class Action and the UCL, San Diego, CA, 2006.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Notice and Response Rates in Class Action Settlements” – Stoel Rives litigation group, Portland, OR / Seattle, WA / Boise, ID / Salt Lake City, UT, 2005.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “Notice and Response Rates in Class Action Settlements” – Stroock & Stroock & Lavan Litigation Group, Los Angeles, CA, 2005.

 Cameron Azari Author, “Twice the Notice or No Settlement.” Current Developments – Issue II, August 2003.

 Cameron Azari Speaker, “A Scientific Approach to Legal Notice Communication” – Weil Gotshal litigation group, New York, NY, 2003.

JUDICIAL COMMENTS

Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel, First Impressions Salon, Inc. et al. v. National Milk Producers Federation, et al. (Apr. 27, 2020) 3:13-cv-00454 (S.D. Ill.):

The Court finds that the Notice given to the Class Members was completed as approved by this Court and complied in all respects with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process. The settlement Notice Plan was modeled on and supplements the previous court-approved plan and, having been completed, constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances. In making this determination, the Court finds that the Notice provided Class members due and adequate notice of the Settlement, the Settlement Agreement, the Plan of Distribution, these proceedings, and the rights of Class members to opt-out of the Class and/or object to Final Approval of the Settlement, as well as Plaintiffs’ Motion requesting attorney fees, costs, and Class Representative service awards.

Judge Harvey Schlesinger, In Re: Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation (Mar. 4, 2020) 3:15-md-02626 (M.D. Fla.):

The Court finds that the dissemination of the Notice: (a) was implemented in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Orders; (b) constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances; (c) constitutes notice that was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the Settlement Classes of (i) the pendency of the Action; (ii) the effect of the Settlement Agreements (including the Releases to the provided thereunder); (iii) Class Counsel’s possible motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses; (iv) the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement Agreements, the Plan of Distribution, and/or

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

5 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 21 of 91

Class Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses; (v) the right to opt out of the Settlement Classes; (vi) the right to appear at the Fairness Hearing; and (vii) the fact that Plaintiffs may receive incentive awards; (d) constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled to receive notice of the Settlement Agreement and (e) satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause).

Judge Amos L. Mazzant, Stone et al. v. Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V f/k/a Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V. a/k/a Vortens (Mar. 3, 2020) 4:17-cv-00001 (E.D. Tex.):

The Court has reviewed the Notice Plan and its implementation and efficacy, and finds that it constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the Action and their right to object to the proposed settlement in full compliance with the requirements of applicable law, including the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and Rules 23(c) and (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In addition, Class Notice clearly and concisely stated in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the certified Equitable Relief Settlement Class; (iii) the claims and issues of the Equitable Relief Settlement Class; (iv) that a Settlement Class Member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(3).

Judge Michael H. Simon, In Re: Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (Mar. 2, 2020) 3:15-md- 2633 (D. Ore.):

The Court confirms that the form and content of the Summary Notice, Long Form Notice, Publication Notice, and Claim Form, and the procedure set forth in the Settlement for providing notice of the Settlement to the Class, were in full compliance with the notice requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e), fully, fairly, accurately, and adequately advised members of the Class of their rights under the Settlement, provided the best notice practicable under the circumstances, fully satisfied the requirements of due process and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and afforded Class Members with adequate time and opportunity to file objections to the Settlement and attorney’s fee motion, submit Requests for Exclusion, and submit Claim Forms to the Settlement Administrator.

Judge Maxine M. Chesney, McKinney-Drobnis, et al. v. Massage Envy Franchising (Mar. 2, 2020) 3:16-CV-6450 (N.D. Cal.):

The COURT hereby finds that the individual direct CLASS NOTICE given to the CLASS via email or First Class U.S. Mail (i) fairly and accurately described the ACTION and the proposed SETTLEMENT; (ii) provided sufficient information so that the CLASS MEMBERS were able to decide whether to accept the benefits offered by the SETTLEMENT, exclude themselves from the SETTLEMENT, or object to the SETTLEMENT; (iii) adequately described the manner in which CLASS MEMBERS could submit a VOUCHER REQUEST under the SETTLEMENT, exclude themselves from the SETTLEMENT, or object to the SETTLEMENT and/or appear at the FINAL APPROVAL HEARING; and (iv) provided the date, time, and place of the FINAL APPROVAL HEARING. The COURT hereby finds that the CLASS NOTICE was the best notice practicable under the circumstances and complied fully with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23, due process, and all other applicable laws.

Judge Harry D. Leinenweber, Albrecht v. Oasis Power, LLC d/b/a Oasis Energy (Feb. 6, 2020) 1:18-cv-1061 (N.D. Ill.):

The Court finds that the distribution of the Class Notice, as provided for in the Settlement Agreement, (i) constituted the best practicable notice under the circumstances to Settlement Class Members, (ii) constituted notice that was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Settlement Class Members of, among other things, the pendency of the Action, the nature and terms of the proposed Settlement, their right to object or to exclude themselves from the proposed Settlement, and their right to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, (iii) was reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to be provided with notice, and (iv) complied fully with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the United States Constitution, the Rules of this Court, and any other applicable law.

The Court finds that the Class Notice and methodology set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the Preliminary Approval Order, and this Final Approval Order (i) constitute the most effective and practicable notice of the Final Approval Order, the relief available to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the Final Approval Order,

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

6 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 22 of 91

and applicable time periods; (ii) constitute due, adequate, and sufficient notice for all other purposes to all Settlement Class Members; and (iii) comply fully with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the United States Constitution, the Rules of this Court, and any other applicable laws.

Judge Robert Scola, Jr., Wilson et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. (Jan. 28, 2020) 17-cv-23033 (S.D. Fla.):

The Court finds that the Class Notice, in the form approved by the Court, was properly disseminated to the Settlement Class pursuant to the Notice Plan and constituted the best practicable notice under the circumstances. The forms and methods of the Notice Plan approved by the Court met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Code, the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), and any other applicable law.

Judge Michael Davis, Garcia v. Target Corporation (Jan. 27, 2020) 16-cv-02574 (D. Minn.):

The Court finds that the Notice Plan set forth in Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement and effectuated pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to the Settlement Class of the pendency of this case, certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the Final Approval Hearing, and satisfies the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, and any other applicable law.

Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, In Re: TD Bank, N.A. Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litigation (Jan. 9, 2020) MDL No. 2613, 6:15-MN-02613 (D. S.C.):

The Classes have been notified of the settlement pursuant to the plan approved by the Court. After having reviewed the Declaration of Cameron R. Azari (ECF No. 220-1) and the Supplemental Declaration of Cameron R. Azari (ECF No. 225-1), the Court hereby finds that notice was accomplished in accordance with the Court’s directives. The Court further finds that the notice program constituted the best practicable notice to the Settlement Classes under the circumstances and fully satisfies the requirements of due process and Federal Rule 23.

Judge Margo K. Brodie, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, (Dec. 13, 2019) MDL No. 1720, 05-MD-1720 (E.D. NY.):

The notice and exclusion procedures provided to the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class, including but not limited to the methods of identifying and notifying members of the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class, were fair, adequate, and sufficient, constituted the best practicable notice under the circumstances, and were reasonably calculated to apprise members of the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class of the Action, the terms of the Superseding Settlement Agreement, and their objection rights, and to apprise members of the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class of their exclusion rights, and fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any other applicable laws or rules of the Court, and due process.

Judge Steven Logan, Knapper v. Cox Communications, Inc. (Dec. 13, 2019) 2:17-cv-00913 (D. Ariz.):

The Court finds that the form and method for notifying the class members of the settlement and its terms and conditions was in conformity with this Court’s Preliminary Approval Order (Doc. 120). The Court further finds that the notice satisfied due process principles and the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), and the Plaintiff chose the best practicable notice under the circumstances. The Court further finds that the notice was clearly designed to advise the class members of their rights.

Judge Manish Shah, Prather v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Dec. 10, 2019) 1:17-cv-00481 (N.D. Ill.):

The Court finds that the Notice Plan set forth in Section VIII of the Settlement Agreement and effectuated pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to the Settlement Class of the pendency of this case, certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the Final Approval Hearing, and satisfies the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, and any other applicable law.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

7 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 23 of 91

Judge Liam O’Grady, Liggio v. Apple Federal Credit Union (Dec. 6, 2019) 1:18-cv-01059 (E.D. Vir.):

The Court finds that the manner and form of notice (the “Notice Plan”) as provided for in the this Court’s July 2, 2019 Order granting preliminary approval of class settlement, and as set forth in the Parties’ Settlement Agreement was provided to Settlement Class Members by the Settlement Administrator. . . The Notice Plan was reasonably calculated to give actual notice to Settlement Class Members of the right to receive benefits from the Settlement, and to be excluded from or object to the Settlement. The Notice Plan met the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and due process and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances.

Judge Brian McDonald, Armon et al. v. Washington State University (Nov. 8, 2019) 17-2-23244-1 (consolidated with 17-2-25052-0) (Sup. Ct. Wash.):

The Court finds that the Notice Program, as set forth in the Settlement and effectuated pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, satisfied CR 23(c)(2), was the best Notice practicable under the circumstances, was reasonably calculated to provide-and did provide-due and sufficient Notice to the Settlement Class of the pendency of the Litigation; certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; the existence and terms of the Settlement; the identity of Class Counsel and appropriate information about Class Counsel’s then-forthcoming application for attorneys’ fees and incentive awards to the Class Representatives; appropriate information about how to participate in the Settlement; Settlement Class Members’ right to exclude themselves; their right to object to the Settlement and to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, through counsel if they desired; and appropriate instructions as to how to obtain additional information regarding this Litigation and the Settlement. In addition, pursuant to CR 23(c)(2)(B), the Notice properly informed Settlement Class Members that any Settlement Class Member who failed to opt-out would be prohibited from bringing a lawsuit against Defendant based on or related to any of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs, and it satisfied the other requirements of the Civil Rules.

Judge Andrew J. Guilford, In Re Wells Fargo Collateral Protection Insurance Litigation (Nov. 4, 2019) 8:17-ml-02797 (C.D. Cal.):

Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. (“Epiq”), the parties’ settlement administrator, was able to deliver the court-approved notice materials to all class members, including 2,254,411 notice packets and 1,019,408 summary notices.

Judge Paul L. Maloney, Burch v. Whirlpool Corporation (Oct. 16, 2019) 1:17-cv-00018 (W.D. Mich.):

[T]he Court hereby finds and concludes that members of the Settlement Class have been provided the best notice practicable of the Settlement and that such notice satisfies all requirements of federal and applicable state laws and due process.

Judge Jon Tigar, McKnight v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (Aug. 13, 2019) 3:14-cv-05615 (N.D. Cal.):

The settlement administrator, Epiq Systems, Inc., carried out the notice procedures as outlined in the preliminary approval. ECF No. 162 at 17-18. Notices were mailed to over 22 million class members with a success rate of over 90%. Id. at 17. Epiq also created a website, banner ads, and a toll free number. Id. at 17-18. Epiq estimates that it reached through mail and other formats 94.3% of class members. ECF No. 164 ¶ 28. In light of these actions, and the Court’s prior order granting preliminary approval, the Court finds that the parties have provided adequate notice to class members.

Judge Gene E.K. Pratter, Tashica Fulton-Green et al. v. Accolade, Inc. (Sept. 24, 2019) 18-274 (E.D. Penn.):

The Court finds that such Notice as therein ordered, constitutes the best possible notice practicable under the circumstances and constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice to all Settlement Class Members in compliance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).

Judge Edwin Torres, Burrow, et al. v. Forjas Taurus S.A., et al. (Sept. 6, 2019) 1:16-cv-21606 (S.D. Fla.):

Because the Parties complied with the agreed-to notice provisions as preliminarily approved by this Court, and given that there are no developments or changes in the facts to alter the Court’s previous conclusion, the Court finds that the notice provided in this case satisfied the requirements of due process and of Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

8 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 24 of 91

Judge Amos L. Mazzant, Fessler v. Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V f/k/a Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V. a/k/a Vortens (Aug. 30, 2019) 4:19-cv-00248 (E.D. Tex.):

The Court has reviewed the Notice Plan and its implementation and efficacy, and finds that it constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the Action and their right to object to the proposed settlement or opt out of the Settlement Class in full compliance with the requirements of applicable law, including the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and Rules 23(c) and (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In addition, Class Notice clearly and concisely stated in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the certified 2011 Settlement Class; (iii) the claims and issues of the 2011 Settlement Class; (iv) that a Settlement Class Member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the Court will exclude from the Settlement Class any member who requests exclusions; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(3).

Judge Karon Owen Bowdre, In Re: Community Health Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (Aug. 22, 2019) MDL No. 2595 (N.D. Ala.):

The court finds that the Notice Program: (1) satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) and due process; (2) was the best practicable notice under the circumstances; (3) reasonably apprised Settlement Class members of the pendency of the Action and their right to object to the settlement or opt-out of the Settlement Class; and (4) was reasonable and constituted due, adequate and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice. Approximately 90% of the 6,081,189 individuals identified as Settlement Class members received the Initial Postcard Notice of this Settlement Action.

The court further finds, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), that the Class Notice adequately informed Settlement Class members of their rights with respect to this action.

Judge Christina A. Snyder, Zaklit, et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al. (Aug. 21, 2019) 5:15-cv-02190 (C.D. Cal.):

The Class Notice provided to the Settlement Class conforms with the requirements of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23, the California and United States Constitutions, and any other applicable law, and constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, by providing individual notice to all Settlement Class Members who could be identified through reasonable effort, and by providing due and adequate notice of the proceedings and of the matters set forth therein to the other Settlement Class Members. The notice fully satisfied the requirements of Due Process. No Settlement Class Members have objected to the terms of the Settlement.

Judge Brian M. Cogan, Luib v. Henkel Consumer Goods Inc. (Aug. 19, 2019) 1:17-cv-03021 (E.D.N.Y.):

The Court finds that the Notice Plan, set forth in the Settlement Agreement and effectuated pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order: (i) was the best notice practicable under the circumstances; (ii) was reasonably calculated to provide, and did provide, due and sufficient notice to the Settlement Class regarding the existence and nature of the Action, certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, the existence and terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the rights of Settlement Class members to exclude themselves from the Settlement Agreement, to object and appear at the Final Approval Hearing, and to receive benefits under the Settlement Agreement; and (iii) satisfied the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, and all other applicable law.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation (Aug. 16, 2019) 4:13-MD- 02420 (N.D. Cal.):

The proposed notice plan was undertaken and carried out pursuant to this Court’s preliminary approval order. [T]he notice program reached approximately 87 percent of adults who purchased portable computers, power tools, camcorders, or replacement batteries, and these class members were notified an average of 3.5 times each. As a result of Plaintiffs’ notice efforts, in total, 1,025,449 class members have submitted claims. That includes 51,961 new claims, and 973,488 claims filed under the prior settlements.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

9 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 25 of 91

Judge Gary W.B. Chang, Robinson v. First Hawaiian Bank (Aug. 8, 2019) 17-1-0167-01 (Cir. Ct. of First Cir. Haw.):

This Court determines that the Notice Program satisfies all of the due process requirements for a class action settlement.

Judge Karin Crump, Hyder, et al. v. Consumers County Mutual Insurance Company (July 30, 2019) D-1-GN-16- 000596 (D. Ct. of Travis County Tex.):

Due and adequate Notice of the pendency of this Action and of this Settlement has been provided to members of the Settlement Class, and this Court hereby finds that the Notice Plan described in the Preliminary Approval Order and completed by Defendant complied fully with the requirements of due process, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and the requirements of due process under the Texas and United States Constitutions, and any other applicable laws.

Judge Wendy Bettlestone, Underwood v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., et al. (July 24, 2019) 2:15-cv-00730 (E.D. Penn.):

The Notice, the contents of which were previously approved by the Court, was disseminated in accordance with the procedures required by the Court's Preliminary Approval Order in accordance with applicable law.

Judge Andrew G. Ceresia, J.S.C., Denier, et al. v. Taconic Biosciences, Inc. (July 15, 2019) 00255851 (Sup Ct. N.Y.):

The Court finds that such Notice as therein ordered, constitutes the best possible notice practicable under the circumstances and constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice to all Settlement Class Members in compliance with the requirements of the CPLR.

Judge Vince G. Chhabria, Parsons v. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group (July 11, 2019) 3:16-cv-05387 (N.D. Cal.):

Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the notice documents were sent to Settlement Class Members by email or by first-class mail, and further notice was achieved via publication in People magazine, internet banner notices, and internet sponsored search listings. The Court finds that the manner and form of notice (the “Notice Program”) set forth in the Settlement Agreement was provided to Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that the Notice Program, as implemented, was the best practicable under the circumstances. The Notice Program was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise the Settlement Class of the pendency of the Action, class certification, the terms of the Settlement, and their rights to opt-out of the Settlement Class and object to the Settlement, Class Counsel’s fee request, and the request for Service Award for Plaintiff. The Notice and Notice Program constituted sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice. The Notice and Notice Program satisfy all applicable requirements of law, including, but not limited to, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the constitutional requirement of due process.

Judge Daniel J. Buckley, Adlouni v. UCLA Health Systems Auxiliary, et al. (June 28, 2019) BC589243 (Sup. Ct. Cal.):

The Court finds that the notice to the Settlement Class pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order was appropriate, adequate, and sufficient, and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all Persons within the definition of the Settlement Class to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the Action, the nature of the claims, the definition of the Settlement Class, and the opportunity to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class or present objections to the settlement. The notice fully complied with the requirements of due process and all applicable statutes and laws and with the California Rules of Court.

Judge John C. Hayes III, Lightsey, et al. v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of SCANA, et al. (June 11, 2019) 2017-CP-25-335 (Ct. of Com. Pleas., S.C.):

These multiple efforts at notification far exceed the due process requirement that the class representative provide the best practical notice. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 94 S.Ct. 2140 (1974); Hospitality Mgmt. Assoc., Inc. v. Shell Oil, Inc., 356 S.C. 644, 591 S.E.2d 611 (2004). Following this extensive notice campaign reaching over 1.6 million potential class member accounts, Class counsel have received just two objections to the settlement and only 24 opt outs.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

10 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 26 of 91

Judge Stephen K. Bushong, Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC (June 4, 2019) 1112-17046 (Ore. Cir., County of Multnomah):

The Court finds that the Notice Plan was effected in accordance with the Preliminary Approval and Notice Order, dated March 26, 2019, was made pursuant to ORCP 32 D, and fully met the requirements of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, the United States Constitution, the Oregon Constitution, and any other applicable law.

Judge Cynthia Bashant, Lloyd, et al. v. Navy Federal Credit Union (May 28, 2019) 17-cv-1280 (S.D. Cal.):

This Court previously reviewed, and conditionally approved Plaintiffs’ class notices subject to certain amendments. The Court affirms once more that notice was adequate.

Judge Robert W. Gettleman, Cowen v. Lenny & Larry's Inc. (May 2, 2019) 1:17-cv-01530 (N.D. Ill.):

Notice to the Settlement Class and other potentially interested parties has been provided in accordance with the elements specified by the Court in the preliminary approval order. Adequate notice of the amended settlement and the final approval hearing has also been given. Such notice informed the Settlement Class members of all material elements of the proposed Settlement and of their opportunity to object or comment thereon or to exclude themselves from the Settlement; provided Settlement Class Members adequate instructions and a means to obtain additional information; was adequate notice under the circumstances; was valid, due, and sufficient notice to all Settlement Class [M]embers; and complied fully with the laws of the State of Illinois, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, due process, and other applicable law.

Judge Edward J. Davila, In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation (Apr. 25, 2019) 5:16-cv-05820 (N.D. Cal.):

Due and adequate notice has been given of the Settlement as required by the Preliminary Approval Order. The Court finds that notice of this Settlement was given to Class Members in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order and constituted the best notice practicable of the proceedings and matters set forth therein, including the Settlement, to all Persons entitled to such notice, and that this notice satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and of due process.

Judge Claudia Wilken, Naiman v. Total Merchant Services, Inc., et al. (Apr. 16, 2019) 4:17-cv-03806 (N.D. Cal.):

The Court also finds that the notice program satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process. The notice approved by the Court and disseminated by Epiq constituted the best practicable method for informing the class about the Final Settlement Agreement and relevant aspects of the litigation.

Judge Paul Gardephe, 37 Besen Parkway, LLC v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) (Mar. 31, 2019) 15- cv-9924 (S.D.N.Y.):

The Notice given to Class Members complied in all respects with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process and provided due and adequate notice to the Class.

Judge Alison J. Nathan, Pantelyat v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Jan. 31, 2019) 16-cv-8964 (S.D.N.Y.):

The Class Notice provided to the Settlement Class in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice of the proceedings and matters set forth therein, to all persons entitled to notice. The notice fully satisfied the requirements of due process, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and all other applicable law and rules.

Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt, Al's Pals Pet Card, LLC, et al v. Woodforest National Bank, N.A., et al. (Jan. 30, 2019) 4:17- cv-3852 (S.D. Tex.):

[T]he Court finds that the class has been notified of the Settlement pursuant to the plan approved by the Court. The Court further finds that the notice program constituted the best practicable notice to the class under the circumstances and fully satisfies the requirements of due process, including Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1715.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

11 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 27 of 91

Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., In re: Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation (Jan. 23, 2019) MDL No. 2817 (N.D. Ill.):

The Court finds that the Settlement Administrator fully complied with the Preliminary Approval Order and that the form and manner of providing notice to the Dealership Class of the proposed Settlement with Reynolds was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members of the Dealership Class who could be identified through the exercise of reasonable effort. The Court further finds that the notice program provided due and adequate notice of these proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the terms of the Agreement, to all parties entitled to such notice and fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), and constitutional due process.

Judge Federico A. Moreno, In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation (Ford) (Dec. 20, 2018) MDL No. 2599 (S.D. Fla.):

The record shows and the Court finds that the Class Notice has been given to the Class in the manner approved by the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order. The Court finds that such Class Notice: .(i) is reasonable and constitutes the best practicable notice to Class Members under the circumstances; (ii) constitutes notice that was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of the pendency of the Action and the terms of the Settlement Agreement, their right to exclude themselves from the Class or to object to all or any part of the Settlement Agreement, their right to appear at the Fairness Hearing (either on their own or through counsel hired at their own expense) and the binding effect of the orders and Final Order and Final Judgment in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, on all persons and entities who or which do not exclude themselves from the Class; (iii) constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons or entities entitled to receive notice; and (iv) fully satisfied the requirements of the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), FED. R. Civ. P. 23 and any other applicable law as well as complying with the Federal Judicial Center's illustrative class action notices.

Judge Herndon, Hale v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al. (Dec. 16, 2018) 3:12-cv-00660 (S.D. Ill.):

The Class here is estimated to include approximately 4.7 million members. Approximately 1.43 million of them received individual postcard or email notice of the terms of the proposed Settlement, and the rest were notified via a robust publication program “estimated to reach 78.8% of all U.S. Adults Aged 35+ approximately 2.4 times.” Doc. 966-2 ¶¶ 26, 41. The Court previously approved the notice plan (Doc. 947), and now, having carefully reviewed the declaration of the Notice Administrator (Doc. 966-2), concludes that it was fully and properly executed, and reflected “the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). The Court further concludes that CAFA notice was properly effectuated to the attorneys general and insurance commissioners of all 50 states and District of Columbia.

Judge Jesse M. Furman, Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Nov. 13, 2018) 14-cv- 7126 (S.D.N.Y.):

The mailing and distribution of the Notice to all members of the Settlement Class who could be identified through reasonable effort, the publication of the Summary Notice, and the other Notice efforts described in the Motion for Final Approval, as provided for in the Court's June 26, 2018 Preliminary Approval Order, satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process, constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constitute due and sufficient notice to all Persons entitled to notice.

Judge William L. Campbell, Jr., Ajose v. Interline Brands, Inc. (Oct. 23, 2018) 3:14-cv-01707 (M.D. Tenn.):

The Court finds that the Notice Plan, as approved by the Preliminary Approval Order: (i) satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(c)(3) and due process; (ii) was reasonable and the best practicable notice under the circumstances; (iii) reasonably apprised the Settlement Class of the pendency of the action, the terms of the Agreement, their right to object to the proposed settlement or opt out of the Settlement Class, the right to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing, and the Claims Process; and (iv) was reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all those entitled to receive notice.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

12 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 28 of 91

Judge Joseph C. Spero, Abante Rooter and Plumbing v. Pivotal Payments Inc., d/b/a/ Capital Processing Network and CPN (Oct. 15, 2018) 3:16-cv-05486 (N.D. Cal.):

[T]the Court finds that notice to the class of the settlement complied with Rule 23(c)(3) and (e) and due process. Rule 23(e)(1) states that “[t]he court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by” a proposed settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise. Class members are entitled to the “best notice that is practicable under the circumstances” of any proposed settlement before it is finally approved by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)…The notice program included notice sent by first class mail to 1,750,564 class members and reached approximately 95.2% of the class.

Judge Marcia G. Cooke, Dipuglia v. US Coachways, Inc. (Sept. 28, 2018) 1:17-cv-23006 (S.D. Fla):

The Settlement Class Notice Program was the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Notice Program provided due and adequate notice of the Case 1:17-cv-23006-MGC Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2018 Page 3 of 7 4 proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the proposed settlement set forth in the Agreement, to all persons entitled to such notice and said notice fully satisfied the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States Constitution, which include the requirement of due process.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman, Gergetz v. Telenav, Inc. (Sept. 27, 2018) 5:16-cv-04261 (N.D. Cal.):

The Court finds that the Notice and Notice Plan implemented pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, which consists of individual notice sent via first-class U.S. Mail postcard, notice provided via email, and the posting of relevant Settlement documents on the Settlement Website, has been successfully implemented and was the best notice practicable under the circumstances and: (1) constituted notice that was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the Action, their right to object to or to exclude themselves from the Settlement Agreement, and their right to appear at the Final Approval Hearing; (2) was reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice; and (3) met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Due Process Clause, and the Rules of this Court.

Judge M. James Lorenz, Farrell v. Bank of America, N.A. (Aug. 31, 2018) 3:16-cv-00492 (S.D. Cal.):

The Court therefore finds that the Class Notices given to Settlement Class members adequately informed Settlement Class members of all material elements of the proposed Settlement and constituted valid, due, and sufficient notice to Settlement Class members. The Court further finds that the Notice Program satisfies due process and has been fully implemented.

Judge Dean D. Pregerson, Falco et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al. (July 16, 2018) 2:13-cv-00686 (C.D. Cal.):

Notice to the Settlement Class as required by Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been provided in accordance with the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, and such Notice by first-class mail was given in an adequate and sufficient manner, and constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and satisfies all requirements of Rule 23(e) and due process.

Judge Lynn Adelman, In re: Windsor Wood Clad Window Product Liability Litigation (July 16, 2018) MDL No. 16-MD- 02688 (E.D. Wis.):

The Court finds that the Notice Program was appropriately administered, and was the best practicable notice to the Class under the circumstances, satisfying the requirements of Rule 23 and due process. The Notice Program, constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons, entities, and/or organizations entitled to receive notice; fully satisfied the requirements of the Constitution of the United States (including the Due Process Clause), Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other applicable law; and is based on the Federal Judicial Center’s illustrative class action notices.

Judge Stephen K. Bushong, Surrett et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, et al. (June 18, 2018) 0803-03530 (Ore. Cir. County of Multnomah):

This Court finds that the distribution of the Notice of Settlement was effected in accordance with the Preliminary Approval/Notice Order, dated February 9, 2018, was made pursuant to ORCP 32 D, and fully met

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

13 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 29 of 91

the requirements of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, the United States Constitution, the Oregon Constitution, and any other applicable law.

Judge Jesse M. Furman, Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (June 1, 2018) 14-cv- 7126 (S.D.N.Y.):

The mailing of the Notice to all members of the Settlement Class who could be identified through reasonable effort, the publication of the Summary Notice, and the other Notice distribution efforts described in the Motion for Final Approval, as provided for in the Court’s October 24, 2017 Order Providing for Notice to the Settlement Class and Preliminarily Approving the Plan of Distribution, satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process, constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constitute due and sufficient notice to all Persons entitled to notice.

Judge Brad Seligman, Larson v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) (May 8, 2018) RG16813803 (Cal. Sup. Ct., County of Alameda):

The Court finds that the Class Notice and dissemination of the Class Notice as carried out by the Settlement Administrator complied with the Court’s order granting preliminary approval and all applicable requirements of law, including, but not limited to California Rules of Court, rule 3.769(f) and the Constitutional requirements of due process, and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice of the Settlement.

[T]he dissemination of the Class Notice constituted the best notice practicable because it included mailing individual notice to all Settlement Class Members who are reasonably identifiable using the same method used to inform class members of certification of the class, following a National Change of Address search and run through the LexisNexis Deceased Database.

Judge Federico A. Moreno, Masson v. Tallahassee Dodge Chrysler Jeep, LLC (May 8, 2018) 17-cv-22967 (S.D. Fla.):

The Settlement Class Notice Program was the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Notice Program provided due and adequate notice of the proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the proposed settlement set forth in the Agreement, to all persons entitled to such notice and said notice fully satisfied the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States Constitution, which include the requirement of due process.

Chancellor Russell T. Perkins, Morton v. GreenBank (Apr. 18, 2018) 11-135-IV (20th Jud. Dist. Tenn.):

The Notice Program as provided or in the Agreement and the Preliminary Amended Approval Order constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all Settlement Class members who could be identified through reasonable effort. The Notice Plan fully satisfied the requirements of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 23.03, due process and any other applicable law.

Judge James V. Selna, Callaway v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Mar. 8, 2018) 8:14-cv-02011 (C.D. Cal.):

The Court finds that the notice given to the Class was the best notice practicable under the circumstances of this case, and that the notice complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process.

The notice given by the Class Administrator constituted due and sufficient notice to the Settlement Class, and adequately informed members of the Settlement Class of their right to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class so as not to be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement and how to object to the Settlement.

The Court has considered and rejected the objection . . . [regarding] the adequacy of the notice plan. The notice given provided ample information regarding the case. Class members also had the ability to seek additional information from the settlement website, from Class Counsel or from the Class Administrator

Judge Thomas M. Durkin, Vergara, et al., v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (Mar. 1, 2018) 1:15-CV-06972 (N.D. Ill.):

The Court finds that the Notice Plan set forth in Section IX of the Settlement Agreement and effectuated pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to the Settlement Classes of the pendency of this case,

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

14 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 30 of 91

certification of the Settlement Classes for settlement purposes only, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the Final Approval Hearing, and satisfies the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, and any other applicable law. Further, the Court finds that Defendant has timely satisfied the notice requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1715.

Judge Federico A. Moreno, In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation (Honda & Nissan) (Feb. 28, 2018) MDL No. 2599 (S.D. Fla.):

The Court finds that the Class Notice has been given to the Class in the manner approved by the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order. The Court finds that such Class Notice: (i) is reasonable and constitutes the best practicable notice to Class Members under the circumstances; (ii) constitutes notice that was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of the pendency of the Action and the terms of the Settlement Agreement, their right to exclude themselves from the Class or to object to all or any part of the Settlement Agreement, their right to appear at the Fairness Hearing (either on their own or through counsel hired at their own expense) and the binding effect of the orders and Final Order and Final Judgment in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, on all persons and entities who or which do not exclude themselves from the Class; (iii) constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons or entities entitled to receive notice; and (iv) fully satisfied the requirements of the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), FED R. CIV. R. 23 and any other applicable law as well as complying with the Federal Judicial Center's illustrative class action notices.

Judge Susan O. Hickey, Larey v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Feb. 9, 2018) 4:14-cv-04008 (W.D. Kan.):

Based on the Court’s review of the evidence submitted and argument of counsel, the Court finds and concludes that the Class Notice and Claim Form was mailed to potential Class Members in accordance with the provisions of the Preliminary Approval Order, and together with the Publication Notice, the automated toll- free telephone number, and the settlement website: (i) constituted, under the circumstances, the most effective and practicable notice of the pendency of the Lawsuit, this Stipulation, and the Final Approval Hearing to all Class Members who could be identified through reasonable effort; and (ii) met all requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the requirements of due process under the United States Constitution, and the requirements of any other applicable rules or law.

Judge Muriel D. Hughes, Glaske v. Independent Bank Corporation (Jan. 11, 2018) 13-009983 (Cir. Ct. Mich.):

The Court-approved Notice Plan satisfied due process requirements . . . The notice, among other things, was calculated to reach Settlement Class Members because it was sent to their last known email or mail address in the Bank’s files.

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, Orlander v. Staples, Inc. (Dec. 13, 2017) 13-CV-0703 (S.D.N.Y.):

The Notice of Class Action Settlement (“Notice”) was given to all Class Members who could be identified with reasonable effort in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Preliminary Approval Order. The form and method of notifying the Class of the pendency of the Action as a class action and the terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Constitution of the United States (including the Due Process Clause); and any other applicable law, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled thereto.

Judge Lisa Godbey Wood, T.A.N. v. PNI Digital Media, Inc. (Dec. 1, 2017) 2:16-cv-132 (S.D. GA.):

Notice to the Settlement Class Members required by Rule 23 has been provided as directed by this Court in the Preliminary Approval Order, and such notice constituted the best notice practicable, including, but not limited to, the forms of notice and methods of identifying and providing notice to the Settlement Class Members, and satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 and due process, and all other applicable laws.

Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, Gottlieb v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation (Nov. 29, 2017) 9:16-cv-81911 (S.D. Fla):

The Settlement Class Notice Program was the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Notice Program provided due and adequate notice of the proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the proposed settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, to all persons entitled to such notice and said

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

15 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 31 of 91

notice fully satisfied the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States Constitution, which include the requirement of due process.

Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, Mahoney v TT of Pine Ridge, Inc. (Nov. 20, 2017) 9:17-cv-80029 (S.D. Fla.):

Based on the Settlement Agreement, Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement, and upon the Declaration of Cameron Azari, Esq. (DE 61-1), the Court finds that Class Notice provided to the Settlement Class was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and that it satisfied the requirements of due process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1).

Judge Gerald Austin McHugh, Sobiech v. U.S. Gas & Electric, Inc., i/t/d/b/a Pennsylvania Gas & Electric, et al. (Nov. 8, 2017) 2:14-cv-04464 (E.D. Penn.):

Notice has been provided to the Settlement Class of the pendency of this Action, the conditional certification of the Settlement Class for purposes of this Settlement, and the preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement contemplated thereby. The Court finds that the notice provided was the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all persons entitled to such notice and fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements of due process.

Judge Federico A. Moreno, In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation (BMW, Mazda, Toyota, & Subaru) (Nov. 1, 2017) MDL No. 2599 (S.D. Fla.):

[T]he Court finds that the Class Notice has been given to the Class in the manner approved in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Class Notice: (i) is reasonable and constitutes the best practicable notice to Class Members under the circumstances; (ii) constitutes notice that was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of the pendency of the Action and the terms of the Settlement Agreement, their right to exclude themselves from the Class or to object to all or any part of the Settlement Agreement, their right to appear at the Fairness Hearing (either on their own or through counsel hired at their own expense), and the binding effect of the orders and Final Order and Final Judgment in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, on all persons and entities who or which do not exclude themselves from the Class; (iii) constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons or entities entitled to receive notice; and (iv) fully satisfied the requirements of the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and any other applicable law as well as complying with the Federal Judicial Center's illustrative class action notices.

Judge Charles R. Breyer, In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (May 17, 2017) MDL No. 2672 (N.D. Cal.):

The Court is satisfied that the Notice Program was reasonably calculated to notify Class Members of the proposed Settlement. The Notice “apprise[d] interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford[ed] them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Indeed, the Notice Administrator reports that the notice delivery rate of 97.04% “exceed[ed] the expected range and is indicative of the extensive address updating and re-mailing protocols used.” (Dkt. No. 3188-2 ¶ 24.)

Judge Rebecca Brett Nightingale, Ratzlaff et al. v. BOKF, NA d/b/a Bank of Oklahoma et al. (May 15, 2017) No. CJ- 2015-00859 (Dist. Ct. Okla.):

The Court-approved Notice Plan satisfies Oklahoma law because it is "reasonable" (12 O.S. § 2023(E)(I)) and it satisfies due process requirements because it was "reasonably calculated, under [the] circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Shutts, 472 U.S. at 812 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314-15).

Judge Joseph F. Bataillon, Klug v. Watts Regulator Company (Apr. 13, 2017) No. 8:15-cv-00061 (D. Neb.):

The court finds that the notice to the Settlement Class of the pendency of the Class Action and of this settlement, as provided by the Settlement Agreement and by the Preliminary Approval Order dated December 7, 2017, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all persons and entities within the definition of the Settlement Class, and fully complied with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 and due process. Due and sufficient proof of the execution of the Notice Plan as outlined in the Preliminary Approval Order has been filed.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

16 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 32 of 91

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Bias v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al. (Apr. 13, 2017) 4:12-cv-00664 (N.D. Cal.):

The form, content, and method of dissemination of Notice of Settlement given to the Settlement Class was adequate and reasonable and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including both individual notice to all Settlement Class Members who could be identified through reasonable effort and publication notice.

Notice of Settlement, as given, complied with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, satisfied the requirements of due process, and constituted due and sufficient notice of the matters set forth herein.

Notice of the Settlement was provided to the appropriate regulators pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715(c)(1).

Judge Carlos Murguia, Whitton v. Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc., et al (Dec. 14, 2016) 2:12-cv-02247 (D. Kan.) and Gary, LLC v. Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc., et al (Dec. 14, 2016) 2:13-cv-2634 (D. Kan.):

The Court determines that the Notice Plan as implemented was reasonably calculated to provide the best notice practicable under the circumstances and contained all required information for members of the proposed Settlement Class to act to protect their interests. The Court also finds that Class Members were provided an adequate period of time to receive Notice and respond accordingly.

Judge Yvette Kane, In re: Shop-Vac Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (Dec. 9, 2016) MDL No. 2380 (M.D. Pa.):

The Court hereby finds and concludes that members of the Settlement Class have been provided the best notice practicable of the Settlement and that such notice satisfies all requirements of due process, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, and all other applicable laws.

Judge Timothy D. Fox, Miner v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (Nov. 21, 2016) 60CV03-4661 (Ark. Cir.):

The Court finds that the Settlement Notice provided to potential members of the Class constituted the best and most practicable notice under the circumstances, thereby complying fully with due process and Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Eileen Bransten, In re: HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Checking Account Overdraft Litigation (Oct. 13, 2016) 650562/2011 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.):

This Court finds that the Notice Program and the Notice provided to Settlement Class members fully satisfied the requirements of constitutional due process, the N.Y. C.P.L.R., and any other applicable laws, and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto.

Judge Jerome B. Simandle, In re: Caterpillar, Inc. C13 and C15 Engine Products Liability Litigation (Sept. 20, 2016) MDL No. 2540 (D. N.J.):

The Court hereby finds that the Notice provided to the Settlement Class constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances. Said Notice provided due and adequate notice of these proceedings and the matters set forth herein, including the terms of the Settlement Agreement, to all persons entitled to such notice, and said notice fully satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, requirements of due process and any other applicable law.

Judge Marcia G. Cooke, Chimeno-Buzzi v. Hollister Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (Apr. 11, 2016) 14-23120 (S.D. Fla.):

Pursuant to the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator, Epiq Systems, Inc. [Hilsoft Notifications], has complied with the approved notice process as confirmed in its Declaration filed with the Court on March 23, 2016. The Court finds that the notice process was designed to advise Class Members of their rights. The form and method for notifying Class Members of the settlement and its terms and conditions was in conformity with this Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

17 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 33 of 91

23(c)(2)(B), the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715, and due process under the United States Constitution and other applicable laws.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation (Mar. 22, 2016) 4:13-MD-02420 (N.D. Cal.):

From what I could tell, I liked your approach and the way you did it. I get a lot of these notices that I think are all legalese and no one can really understand them. Yours was not that way.

Judge Christopher S. Sontchi, In re: Energy Future Holdings Corp, et al., (July 30, 2015) 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del.):

Notice of the Asbestos Bar Date as set forth in this Asbestos Bar Date Order and in the manner set forth herein constitutes adequate and sufficient notice of the Asbestos Bar Date and satisfies the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, and the Local Rules.

Judge David C. Norton, In re: MI Windows and Doors Inc. Products Liability Litigation (July 22, 2015) MDL No. 2333, 2:12-mn-00001 (D. S.C.):

The court finds that the Notice Plan, as described in the Settlement and related declarations, has been faithfully carried out and constituted the best practicable notice to Class Members under the circumstances of this Action, and was reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all Persons entitled to be provided with Notice.

The court also finds that the Notice Plan was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of: (1) the pendency of this class action; (2) their right to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class and the proposed Settlement; (3) their right to object to any aspect of the proposed Settlement (including final certification of the Settlement Class, the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the proposed Settlement, the adequacy of the Settlement Class’s representation by Named Plaintiffs or Class Counsel, or the award of attorney’s and representative fees); (4) their right to appear at the fairness hearing (either on their own or through counsel hired at their own expense); and (5) the binding and preclusive effect of the orders and Final Order and Judgment in this Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, on all Persons who do not request exclusion from the Settlement Class. As such, the court finds that the Notice fully satisfied the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and (e), the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), the rules of this court, and any other applicable law, and provided sufficient notice to bind all Class Members, regardless of whether a particular Class Member received actual notice.

Judge Robert W. Gettleman, Adkins v. Nestle Purina PetCare Company, et al., (June 23, 2015) 12-cv-2871 (N.D. Ill.):

Notice to the Settlement Class and other potentially interested parties has been provided in accordance with the notice requirements specified by the Court in the Preliminary Approval Order. Such notice fully and accurately informed the Settlement Class members of all material elements of the proposed Settlement and of their opportunity to object or comment thereon or to exclude themselves from the Settlement; provided Settlement Class Members adequate instructions and a variety of means to obtain additional information; was the best notice practicable under the circumstances; was valid, due, and sufficient notice to all Settlement Class members; and complied fully with the laws of the State of Illinois, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, due process, and other applicable law.

Judge James Lawrence King, Steen v. Capital One, N.A. (May 22, 2015) 2:10-cv-01505 (E.D. La.) and 1:10-cv-22058 (S.D. Fla.) as part of In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL 2036 (S.D. Fla.):

The Court finds that the Settlement Class Members were provided with the best practicable notice; the notice was reasonably calculated, under [the] circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.'' Shutts, 472 U.S. at 812 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314-15). This Settlement with Capital One was widely publicized, and any Settlement Class Member who wished to express comments or objections had ample opportunity and means to do so. Azari Decl. ¶¶ 30-39.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

18 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 34 of 91

Judge Rya W. Zobel, Gulbankian et al. v. MW Manufacturers, Inc., (Dec. 29, 2014) 1:10-cv-10392 (D. Mass.):

This Court finds that the Class Notice was provided to the Settlement Class consistent with the Preliminary Approval Order and that it was the best notice practicable and fully satisfied the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, and applicable law. The Court finds that the Notice Plan that was implemented by the Claims Administrator satisfies the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 23, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, and Due Process, and is the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Notice Plan constituted due and sufficient notice of the Settlement, the Final Approval Hearing, and the other matters referred to in the notices. Proof of the giving of such notices has been filed with the Court via the Azari Declaration and its exhibits.

Judge Edward J. Davila, Rose v. Bank of America Corporation, and FIA Card Services, N.A., (Aug. 29, 2014) 5:11-CV-02390; 5:12-CV-0400 (N.D. Cal.):

The Court finds that the notice was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise the Settlement Class of the pendency of this action, all material elements of the Settlement, the opportunity for Settlement Class Members to exclude themselves from, object to, or comment on the settlement and to appear at the final approval hearing. The notice was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, satisfying the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B); provided notice in a reasonable manner to all class members, satisfying Rule 23(e)(1)(B); was adequate and sufficient notice to all Class Members; and, complied fully with the laws of the United States and of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process and any other applicable rules of court.

Judge James A. Robertson, II, Wong et al. v. Alacer Corp. (June 27, 2014) CGC-12-519221 (Cal. Super. Ct.):

Notice to the Settlement Class has been provided in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order. Based on the Declaration of Cameron Azari dated March 7, 2014, such Class Notice has been provided in an adequate and sufficient manner, constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances and satisfies the requirements of California Civil Code Section 1781, California Civil Code of Civil Procedure Section 382, Rules 3.766 of the California Rules of Court, and due process.

Judge John Gleeson, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, (Dec. 13, 2013) 05-md-01720, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. NY.):

The Class Administrator notified class members of the terms of the proposed settlement through a mailed notice and publication campaign that included more than 20 million mailings and publication in more than 400 publications. The notice here meets the requirements of due process and notice standards… The objectors’ complaints provide no reason to conclude that the purposes and requirements of a notice to a class were not met here.

Judge Lance M. Africk, Evans, et al. v. TIN, Inc., et al, (July 7, 2013) 2:11-cv-02067 (E.D. La.):

The Court finds that the dissemination of the Class Notice… as described in Notice Agent Lauran Schultz’s Declaration: (a) constituted the best practicable notice to Class Members under the circumstances; (b) constituted notice that was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances…; (c) constituted notice that was reasonable, due, adequate, and sufficient; and (d) constituted notice that fully satisfied all applicable legal requirements, including Rules 23(c)(2)(B) and (e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including Due Process Clause), the Rules of this Court, and any other applicable law, as well as complied with the Federal Judicial Center’s illustrative class action notices.

Judge Edward M. Chen, Marolda v. Symantec Corporation, (Apr. 5, 2013) 08-cv-05701 (N.D. Cal.):

Approximately 3.9 million notices were delivered by email to class members, but only a very small percentage objected or opted out . . . The Court . . . concludes that notice of settlement to the class was adequate and satisfied all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and due process. Class members received direct notice by email, and additional notice was given by publication in numerous widely circulated publications as well as in numerous targeted publications. These were the best practicable means of informing class members of their rights and of the settlement’s terms.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

19 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 35 of 91

Judge Ann D. Montgomery, In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation, (Feb. 27, 2013) 0:08-cv-01958 (D. Minn.):

The parties retained Hilsoft Notifications ("Hilsoft"), an experienced class-notice consultant, to design and carry out the notice plan. The form and content of the notices provided to the class were direct, understandable, and consistent with the "plain language" principles advanced by the Federal Judicial Center.

The notice plan's multi-faceted approach to providing notice to settlement class members whose identity is not known to the settling parties constitutes "the best notice [*26] that is practicable under the circumstances" consistent with Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

Magistrate Judge Stewart, Gessele et al. v. Jack in the Box, Inc., (Jan. 28, 2013) 3:10-cv-960 (D. Ore.):

Moreover, plaintiffs have submitted [a] declaration from Cameron Azari (docket #129), a nationally recognized notice expert, who attests that fashioning an effective joint notice is not unworkable or unduly confusing. Azari also provides a detailed analysis of how he would approach fashioning an effective notice in this case.

Judge Carl J. Barbier, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 (Medical Benefits Settlement), (Jan. 11, 2013) MDL No. 2179 (E.D. La.):

Through August 9, 2012, 366,242 individual notices had been sent to potential [Medical Benefits] Settlement Class Members by postal mail and 56,136 individual notices had been e-mailed. Only 10,700 mailings—or 3.3%—were known to be undeliverable. (Azari Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9.) Notice was also provided through an extensive schedule of local newspaper, radio, television and Internet placements, well-read consumer magazines, a national daily business newspaper, highly-trafficked websites, and Sunday local newspapers (via newspaper supplements). Notice was also provided in non-measured trade, business and specialty publications, African-American, Vietnamese, and Spanish language publications, and Cajun radio programming. The combined measurable paid print, television, radio, and Internet effort reached an estimated 95% of adults aged 18+ in the Gulf Coast region an average of 10.3 times each, and an estimated 83% of all adults in the United States aged 18+ an average of 4 times each. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 10.) All notice documents were designed to be clear, substantive, and informative. (Id. ¶ 5.)

The Court received no objections to the scope or content of the [Medical Benefits] Notice Program. (Azari Supp. Decl. ¶ 12.) The Court finds that the Notice and Notice Plan as implemented satisfied the best notice practicable standard of Rule 23(c) and, in accordance with Rule 23(e)(1), provided notice in a reasonable manner to Class Members who would be bound by the Settlement, including individual notice to all Class Members who could be identified through reasonable effort. Likewise, the Notice and Notice Plan satisfied the requirements of Due Process. The Court also finds the Notice and Notice Plan satisfied the requirements of CAFA.

Judge Carl J. Barbier, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 (Economic and Property Damages Settlement), (Dec. 21, 2012) MDL No. 2179 (E.D. La.):

The Court finds that the Class Notice and Class Notice Plan satisfied and continue to satisfy the applicable requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(b) and 23(e), the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. § 1711 et seq.), and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. V), constituting the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances of this litigation. The notice program surpassed the requirements of Due Process, Rule 23, and CAFA. Based on the factual elements of the Notice Program as detailed below, the Notice Program surpassed all of the requirements of Due Process, Rule 23, and CAFA.

The Notice Program, as duly implemented, surpasses other notice programs that Hilsoft Notifications has designed and executed with court approval. The Notice Program included notification to known or potential Class Members via postal mail and e-mail; an extensive schedule of local newspaper, radio, television and Internet placements, well-read consumer magazines, a national daily business newspaper, and Sunday local newspapers. Notice placements also appeared in non-measured trade, business, and specialty publications, African-American, Vietnamese, and Spanish language publications, and Cajun radio programming. The Notice Program met the objective of reaching the greatest possible number of class members and providing them with every reasonable opportunity to understand their legal rights. See Azari Decl. ¶¶ 8, 15, 68. The

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

20 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 36 of 91

Notice Program was substantially completed on July 15, 2012, allowing class members adequate time to make decisions before the opt-out and objections deadlines.

The media notice effort alone reached an estimated 95% of adults in the Gulf region an average of 10.3 times each, and an estimated 83% of all adults in the United States an average of 4 times each. These figures do not include notice efforts that cannot be measured, such as advertisements in trade publications and sponsored search engine listings. The Notice Program fairly and adequately covered and notified the class without excluding any demographic group or geographic area, and it exceeded the reach percentage achieved in most other court-approved notice programs.

Judge Alonzo Harris, Opelousas General Hospital Authority, A Public Trust, D/B/A Opelousas General Health System and Arklamiss Surgery Center, L.L.C. v. FairPay Solutions, Inc., (Aug. 17, 2012) 12-C-1599 (27th Jud. D. Ct. La.):

Notice given to Class Members and all other interested parties pursuant to this Court’s order of April 18, 2012, was reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action, the certification of the Class as Defined for settlement purposes only, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Class Members rights to be represented by private counsel, at their own costs, and Class Members rights to appear in Court to have their objections heard, and to afford persons or entities within the Class Definition an opportunity to exclude themselves from the Class. Such notice complied with all requirements of the federal and state constitutions, including the Due Process Clause, and applicable articles of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constituted due and sufficient notice to all potential members of the Class as Defined.

Judge James Lawrence King, In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation (IBERIABANK), (Apr. 26, 2012) MDL No. 2036 (S.D. Fla):

The Court finds that the Notice previously approved was fully and properly effectuated and was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process because it described “the substantive claims . . . [and] contained information reasonably necessary to [allow Settlement Class Members to] make a decision to remain a class member and be bound by the final judgment.'' In re Nissan Motor Corp. Antitrust Litig., 552 F.2d 1088, 1104-05 (5th Cir. 1977). The Notice, among other things, defined the Settlement Class, described the release as well as the amount and method and manner of proposed distribution of the Settlement proceeds, and informed Settlement Class Members of their rights to opt-out or object, the procedures for doing so, and the time and place of the Final Approval Hearing. The Notice also informed Settlement Class Members that a class judgment would bind them unless they opted out, and told them where they could obtain more information, such as access to a full copy of the Agreement. Further, the Notice described in summary form the fact that Class Counsel would be seeking attorneys' fees of up to 30 percent of the Settlement. Settlement Class Members were provided with the best practicable notice “reasonably calculated, under [the] circumstances, to apprise them of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.'' Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314. The content of the Notice fully complied with the requirements of Rule 23.

Judge Bobby Peters, Vereen v. Lowe’s Home Centers, (Apr. 13, 2012) SU10-CV-2267B (Ga. Super. Ct.):

The Court finds that the Notice and the Notice Plan was fulfilled, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Amendment, and this Court’s Preliminary Approval Order and that this Notice and Notice Plan constituted the best practicable notice to Class Members under the circumstances of this action, constituted due and sufficient Notice of the proposed Settlement to all persons entitled to participate in the proposed Settlement, and was in full compliance with Ga. Code Ann § 9-11-23 and the constitutional requirements of due process. Extensive notice was provided to the class, including point of sale notification, publication notice and notice by first-class mail for certain potential Class Members.

The affidavit of the notice expert conclusively supports this Court’s finding that the notice program was adequate, appropriate, and comported with Georgia Code Ann. § 9-11-23(b)(2), the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, and the guidance for effective notice articulate in the FJC’s Manual for Complex Litigation, 4th.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

21 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 37 of 91

Judge Lee Rosenthal, In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, (Mar. 2, 2012) MDL No. 2046 (S.D. Tex.):

The notice that has been given clearly complies with Rule 23(e)(1)’s reasonableness requirement… Hilsoft Notifications analyzed the notice plan after its implementation and conservatively estimated that notice reached 81.4 percent of the class members. (Docket Entry No. 106, ¶ 32). Both the summary notice and the detailed notice provided the information reasonably necessary for the presumptive class members to determine whether to object to the proposed settlement. See Katrina Canal Breaches, 628 F.3d at 197. Both the summary notice and the detailed notice “were written in easy-to-understand plain English.” In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litig., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2011 WL 5117058, at *23 (D.D.C. 2011); accord AGGREGATE LITIGATION § 3.04(c).15 The notice provided “satisf[ies] the broad reasonableness standards imposed by due process” and Rule 23. Katrina Canal Breaches, 628 F.3d at 197.

Judge John D. Bates, Trombley v. National City Bank, (Dec. 1, 2011) 1:10-CV-00232 (D.D.C.) as part of In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL 2036 (S.D. Fla.):

The form, content, and method of dissemination of Notice given to the Settlement Class were in full compliance with the Court’s January 11, 2011 Order, the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), and due process. The notice was adequate and reasonable, and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances. In addition, adequate notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to participate in the final fairness hearing were provided to the Settlement Class.

Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., Schulte v. Fifth Third Bank, (July 29, 2011) 1:09-cv-6655 (N.D. Ill.):

The Court has reviewed the content of all of the various notices, as well as the manner in which Notice was disseminated, and concludes that the Notice given to the Class fully complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, as it was the best notice practicable, satisfied all constitutional due process concerns, and provided the Court with jurisdiction over the absent Class Members.

Judge Ellis J. Daigle, Williams v. Hammerman & Gainer Inc., (June 30, 2011) 11-C-3187-B (27th Jud. D. Ct. La.):

Notices given to Settlement Class members and all other interested parties throughout this proceeding with respect to the certification of the Settlement Class, the proposed settlement, and all related procedures and hearings—including, without limitation, the notice to putative Settlement Class members and others more fully described in this Court’s order of 30th day of March 2011 were reasonably calculated under all the circumstances and have been sufficient, as to form, content, and manner of dissemination, to apprise interested parties and members of the Settlement Class of the pendency of the action, the certification of the Settlement Class, the Settlement Agreement and its contents, Settlement Class members’ right to be represented by private counsel, at their own cost, and Settlement Class members’ right to appear in Court to have their objections heard, and to afford Settlement Class members an opportunity to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. Such notices complied with all requirements of the federal and state constitutions, including the due process clause, and applicable articles of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedures, and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constituted due and sufficient notice to all potential members of the Settlement Class.

Judge Stefan R. Underhill, Mathena v. Webster Bank, N.A., (Mar. 24, 2011) 3:10-cv-1448 (D. Conn.) as part of In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL 2036 (S.D. Fla.):

The form, content, and method of dissemination of Notice given to the Settlement Class were adequate and reasonable, and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Notice, as given, provided valid, due, and sufficient notice of the proposed settlement, the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and these proceedings to all persons entitled to such notice, and said notice fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process.

Judge Ted Stewart, Miller v. Basic Research, LLC, (Sept. 2, 2010) 2:07-cv-871 (D. Utah):

Plaintiffs state that they have hired a firm specializing in designing and implementing large scale, unbiased, legal notification plans. Plaintiffs represent to the Court that such notice will include: 1) individual notice by electronic mail and/or first-class mail sent to all reasonably identifiable Class members; 2) nationwide paid media notice through a combination of print publications, including newspapers, consumer magazines, newspaper supplements and the Internet; 3) a neutral, Court-approved, informational press release; 4) a

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

22 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 38 of 91

neutral, Court-approved Internet website; and 5) a toll-free telephone number. Similar mixed media plans have been approved by other district courts post class certification. The Court finds this plan is sufficient to meet the notice requirement.

Judge Sara Loi, Pavlov v. Continental Casualty Co., (Oct. 7, 2009) 5:07-cv-2580 (N.D. Ohio):

As previously set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, the elaborate notice program contained in the Settlement Agreement provides for notice through a variety of means, including direct mail to each class member, notice to the United States Attorney General and each State, a toll free number, and a website designed to provide information about the settlement and instructions on submitting claims. With a 99.9% effective rate, the Court finds that the notice program constituted the “best notice that is practicable under the circumstances,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), and clearly satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

Judge James Robertson, In re Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Data Theft Litigation, (Sept. 23, 2009) MDL No. 1796 (D.D.C.):

The Notice Plan, as implemented, satisfied the requirements of due process and was the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Notice Plan was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of the pendency of the action, the terms of the Settlement, and their right to appear, object to or exclude themselves from the Settlement. Further, the notice was reasonable and constituted due, adequate and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice.

Judge Lisa F. Chrystal, Little v. Kia Motors America, Inc., (Aug. 27, 2009) UNN-L-0800-01 (N.J. Super. Ct.):

The Court finds that the manner and content of the notices for direct mailing and for publication notice, as specified in the Notice Plan (Exhibit 2 to the Affidavit of Lauran R. Schultz), provides the best practicable notice of judgment to members of the Plaintiff Class.

Judge Barbara Crowder, Dolen v. ABN AMRO Bank N.V., (Mar. 23, 2009) 01-L-454, 01-L-493 (3rd Jud. Cir. Ill.):

The Court finds that the Notice Plan is the best notice practicable under the circumstances and provides the Eligible Members of the Settlement Class sufficient information to make informed and meaningful decisions regarding their options in this Litigation and the effect of the Settlement on their rights. The Notice Plan further satisfies the requirements of due process and 735 ILCS 5/2-803. That Notice Plan is approved and accepted. This Court further finds that the Notice of Settlement and Claim Form comply with 735 ILCS 5/2-803 and are appropriate as part of the Notice Plan and the Settlement, and thus they are hereby approved and adopted. This Court further finds that no other notice other than that identified in the Notice Plan is reasonably necessary in this Litigation.

Judge Robert W. Gettleman, In re Trans Union Corp., (Sept. 17, 2008) MDL No. 1350 (N.D. Ill.):

The Court finds that the dissemination of the Class Notice under the terms and in the format provided for in its Preliminary Approval Order constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, is due and sufficient notice for all purposes to all persons entitled to such notice, and fully satisfies the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the requirements of due process under the Constitution of the United States, and any other applicable law… Accordingly, all objections are hereby OVERRULED.

Judge Steven D. Merryday, Lockwood v. Certegy Check Services, Inc., (Sept. 3, 2008) 8:07-cv-1434 (M.D. Fla.):

The form, content, and method of dissemination of the notice given to the Settlement Class were adequate and reasonable and constituted the best notice practicable in the circumstances. The notice as given provided valid, due, and sufficient notice of the proposed settlement, the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, and these proceedings to all persons entitled to such notice, and the notice satisfied the requirements of Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and due process. Judge William G. Young, In re TJX Companies, (Sept. 2, 2008) MDL No. 1838 (D. Mass.):

The form, content, and method of dissemination of notice provided to the Settlement Class were adequate and reasonable, and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Notice, as given, provided valid, due, and sufficient notice of the proposed settlement, the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and these proceedings to all Persons entitled to such notice, and said Notice fully satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

23 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 39 of 91

Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co., (June 11, 2008) SACV-06-2235 (C.D. Cal.):

[Notice] was reasonable and constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice; and met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Class Action Fairness Act, the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clauses), the Rules of the Court, and any other applicable law.

Judge Robert L. Wyatt, Gunderson v. AIG Claim Services, Inc., (May 29, 2008) 2004-002417 (14th Jud. D. Ct. La.):

Notices given to Settlement Class members…were reasonably calculated under all the circumstances and have been sufficient, as to form, content, and manner of dissemination…Such notices complied with all requirements of the federal and state constitutions, including the due process clause, and applicable articles of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constituted due and sufficient notice to all potential members of the Settlement Class.

Judge Mary Anne Mason, Palace v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., (May 29, 2008) 01-CH-13168 (Ill. Cir. Ct.):

The form, content, and method of dissemination of the notice given to the Illinois class and to the Illinois Settlement Class were adequate and reasonable, and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The notice, as given, provided valid, due, and sufficient notice of the proposed Settlement, the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and these proceedings, to all Persons entitled to such notice, and said notice fully satisfied the requirements of due process and complied with 735 ILCS §§5/2-803 and 5/2-806.

Judge David De Alba, Ford Explorer Cases, (May 29, 2008) JCCP Nos. 4226 & 4270 (Cal. Super. Ct.):

[T]he Court is satisfied that the notice plan, design, implementation, costs, reach, were all reasonable, and has no reservations about the notice to those in this state and those in other states as well, including Texas, Connecticut, and Illinois; that the plan that was approved—submitted and approved, comports with the fundamentals of due process as described in the case law that was offered by counsel.

Judge Kirk D. Johnson, Webb v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., (Mar. 3, 2008) CV-2007-418-3 (Ark. Cir. Ct.):

The Court finds that there was minimal opposition to the settlement. After undertaking an extensive notice campaign to Class members of approximately 10,707 persons, mailed notice reached 92.5% of potential Class members.

Judge Carol Crafton Anthony, Johnson v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., (Dec. 6, 2007) CV-2003-513 (Ark. Cir. Ct.):

Notice of the Settlement Class was constitutionally adequate, both in terms of its substance and the manner in which it was disseminated…Notice was direct mailed to all Class members whose current whereabouts could be identified by reasonable effort. Notice reached a large majority of the Class members. The Court finds that such notice constitutes the best notice practicable…The forms of Notice and Notice Plan satisfy all of the requirements of Arkansas law and due process.

Judge Kirk D. Johnson, Sweeten v. American Empire Insurance Co., (Aug. 20, 2007) CV-2007-154-3 (Ark. Cir. Ct.):

The Court does find that all notices required by the Court to be given to class members was done within the time allowed and the manner best calculated to give notice and apprise all the interested parties of the litigation. It was done through individual notice, first class mail, through internet website and the toll-free telephone call center…The Court does find that these methods were the best possible methods to advise the class members of the pendency of the action and opportunity to present their objections and finds that these notices do comply with all the provisions of Rule 23 and the Arkansas and United States Constitutions.

Judge Robert Wyatt, Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Associates, Inc., (July 19, 2007) 2004-2417-D (14th Jud. D. Ct. La.):

This is the final Order and Judgment regarding the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy. And I am satisfied in all respects regarding the presentation that’s been made to the Court this morning in the Class memberships, the representation, the notice, and all other aspects and I’m signing that Order at this time.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

24 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 40 of 91

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, (July 19, 2007) MDL No. 1653-LAK (S.D.N.Y.):

The Court finds that the distribution of the Notice, the publication of the Publication Notice, and the notice methodology…met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, (including the Due Process clause), the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 78u-4, et seq.) (the “PSLRA”), the Rules of the Court, and any other applicable law.

Judge Joe Griffin, Beasley v. The Reliable Life Insurance Co., (Mar. 29, 2007) CV-2005-58-1 (Ark. Cir. Ct.):

[T]he Court has, pursuant to the testimony regarding the notification requirements, that were specified and adopted by this Court, has been satisfied and that they meet the requirements of due process. They are fair, reasonable, and adequate. I think the method of notification certainly meets the requirements of due process…So the Court finds that the notification that was used for making the potential class members aware of this litigation and the method of filing their claims, if they chose to do so, all those are clear and concise and meet the plain language requirements and those are completely satisfied as far as this Court is concerned in this matter.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, (Mar. 1, 2007) MDL No. 1653-LAK (S.D.N.Y.):

The court approves, as to form and content, the Notice and the Publication Notice, attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, and finds that the mailing and distribution of the Notice and the publication of the Publication Notice in the manner and the form set forth in Paragraph 6 of this Order…meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as emended by Section 21D(a)(7) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u- 4(a)(7), and due process, and is the best notice practicable under the circumstances and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled thereto.

Judge Anna J. Brown, Reynolds v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., (Feb. 27, 2007) CV-01-1529-BR (D. Ore.):

[T]he court finds that the Notice Program fairly, fully, accurately, and adequately advised members of the Settlement Class and each Settlement Subclass of all relevant and material information concerning the proposed settlement of this action, their rights under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and related matters, and afforded the Settlement Class with adequate time and an opportunity to file objections to the Settlement or request exclusion from the Settlement Class. The court finds that the Notice Program constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 and due process.

Judge Kirk D. Johnson, Zarebski v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, (Feb. 13, 2007) CV-2006-409- 3 (Ark. Cir. Ct.):

Based on the Court’s review of the evidence admitted and argument of counsel, the Court finds and concludes that the Class Notice, as disseminated to members of the Settlement Class in accordance with provisions of the Preliminary Approval Order, was the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all members of the Settlement Class. Accordingly, the Class Notice and Claim Form as disseminated are finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate notice under the circumstances. The Court finds and concludes that due and adequate notice of the pendency of this Action, the Stipulation, and the Final Settlement Hearing has been provided to members of the Settlement Class, and the Court further finds and concludes that the notice campaign described in the Preliminary Approval Order and completed by the parties complied fully with the requirements of Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the requirements of due process under the Arkansas and United States Constitutions.

Judge Richard J. Holwell, In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation, 2007 WL 1490466 (S.D.N.Y.):

In response to defendants’ manageability concerns, plaintiffs have filed a comprehensive affidavit outlining the effectiveness of its proposed method of providing notice in foreign countries. According to this…the Court is satisfied that plaintiffs intend to provide individual notice to those class members whose names and addresses are ascertainable, and that plaintiffs’ proposed form of publication notice, while complex, will prove both manageable and the best means practicable of providing notice.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

25 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 41 of 91

Judge Samuel Conti, Ciabattari v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., (Nov. 17, 2006) C-05-04289-SC (N.D. Cal.):

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by the parties…the Court finds as follows…The class members were given the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and that such notice meets the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and all applicable statutes and rules of court.

Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle, In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Prods. Liability Litigation, (Nov. 8, 2006) MDL No. 1632 (E.D. La.):

This Court approved a carefully-worded Notice Plan, which was developed with the assistance of a nationally-recognized notice expert, Hilsoft Notifications…The Notice Plan for this Class Settlement was consistent with the best practices developed for modern-style “plain English” class notices; the Court and Settling Parties invested substantial effort to ensure notice to persons displaced by the Hurricanes of 2005; and as this Court has already determined, the Notice Plan met the requirements of Rule 23 and constitutional due process.

Judge Catherine C. Blake, In re Royal Ahold Securities and “ERISA” Litigation, (Nov. 2, 2006) MDL No. 1539 (D. Md.):

The global aspect of the case raised additional practical and legal complexities, as did the parallel criminal proceedings in another district. The settlement obtained is among the largest cash settlements ever in a securities class action case and represents an estimated 40% recovery of possible provable damages. The notice process appears to have been very successful not only in reaching but also in eliciting claims from a substantial percentage of those eligible for recovery.

Judge Elaine E. Bucklo, Carnegie v. Household International, (Aug. 28, 2006) 98 C 2178 (N.D. Ill.):

[T]he Notice was disseminated pursuant to a plan consisting of first class mail and publication developed by Plaintiff’s notice consultant, Hilsoft Notification[s]…who the Court recognized as experts in the design of notice plans in class actions. The Notice by first-class mail and publication was provided in an adequate and sufficient manner; constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances; and satisfies all requirements of Rule 23(e) and due process.

Judge Joe E. Griffin, Beasley v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, (June 13, 2006) CV-2005-58-1 (Ark. Cir. Ct.):

Based on the Court’s review of the evidence admitted and argument of counsel, the Court finds and concludes that the Individual Notice and the Publication Notice, as disseminated to members of the Settlement Class in accordance with provisions of the Preliminarily Approval Order, was the best notice practicable under the circumstances…and the requirements of due process under the Arkansas and United States Constitutions.

Judge Norma L. Shapiro, First State Orthopedics et al. v. Concentra, Inc., et al., (May 1, 2006) 2:05-CV-04951 (E.D. Pa.):

The Court finds that dissemination of the Mailed Notice, Published Notice and Full Notice in the manner set forth here and in the Settlement Agreement meets the requirements of due process and Pennsylvania law. The Court further finds that the notice is reasonable, and constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice, is the best practicable notice; and is reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise members of the Settlement Class of the pendency of the Lawsuit and of their right to object or to exclude themselves from the proposed settlement.

Judge Thomas M. Hart, Froeber v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., (Apr. 19, 2006) 00C15234 (Ore. Cir. Ct.):

The court has found and now reaffirms that dissemination and publication of the Class Notice in accordance with the terms of the Third Amended Order constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances.

Judge Catherine C. Blake, In re Royal Ahold Securities and “ERISA” Litigation, (Jan. 6, 2006) MDL No. 1539 (D. Md.):

I think it’s remarkable, as I indicated briefly before, given the breadth and scope of the proposed Class, the global nature of the Class, frankly, that again, at least on a preliminary basis, and I will be getting a final report on this, that the Notice Plan that has been proposed seems very well, very well suited, both in terms

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

26 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 42 of 91

of its plain language and in terms of its international reach, to do what I hope will be a very thorough and broad-ranging job of reaching as many of the shareholders, whether individual or institutional, as possibly can be done to participate in what I also preliminarily believe to be a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement.

Judge Catherine C. Blake, In re Royal Ahold Securities & “ERISA” Litigation, (2006) 437 F.Supp.2d 467, 472 (D. Md.):

The court hereby finds that the Notice and Notice Plan described herein and in the Order dated January 9, 2006 provided Class Members with the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Notice provided due and adequate notice of these proceedings and the matters set forth herein, including the Settlement and Plan of Allocation, to all persons entitled to such notice, and the Notice fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements of due process.

Judge Robert H. Wyatt, Jr., Gray v. New Hampshire Indemnity Co., Inc., (Dec. 19, 2005) CV-2002-952-2-3 (Ark. Cir. Ct.):

Notice of the Settlement Class was constitutionally adequate, both in terms of its substance and the manner in which it was disseminated. The Notice contained the essential elements necessary to satisfy due process, including the Settlement Class definition, the identities of the Parties and of their counsel, a summary of the terms of the proposed settlement, Class Counsel’s intent to apply for fees, information regarding the manner in which objections could be submitted, and requests for exclusions could be filed. The Notice properly informed Class members of the formula for the distribution of benefits under the settlement…Notice was direct mailed to all Class members whose current whereabouts could be identified by reasonable effort. Notice was also effected by publication in many newspapers and magazines throughout the nation, reaching a large majority of the Class members multiple times. The Court finds that such notice constitutes the best notice practicable.

Judge Michael J. O’Malley, Defrates v. Hollywood Entm’t Corp., (June 24, 2005) 02 L 707 (Ill. Cir. Ct.):

[T]his Court hereby finds that the notice program described in the Preliminary Approval Order and completed by HEC complied fully with the requirements of due process, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all other applicable laws.

Judge Wilford D. Carter, Thibodeaux v. Conoco Phillips Co., (May 26, 2005) 2003-481 F (14th J.D. Ct. La.):

Notice given to Class Members…were reasonably calculated under all the circumstances and have been sufficient, both as to the form and content…Such notices complied with all requirements of the federal and state constitutions, including the due process clause, and applicable articles of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constituted due process and sufficient notice to all potential members of the Class as Defined.

Judge Michael Canaday, Morrow v. Conoco Inc., (May 25, 2005) 2002-3860 G (14th J.D. Ct. La.):

The objections, if any, made to due process, constitutionality, procedures, and compliance with law, including, but not limited to, the adequacy of notice and the fairness of the proposed Settlement Agreement, lack merit and are hereby overruled.

Judge John R. Padova, Nichols v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., (Apr. 22, 2005) 00-6222 (E.D. Pa.):

Pursuant to the Order dated October 18, 2004, End-Payor Plaintiffs employed Hilsoft Notifications to design and oversee Notice to the End-Payor Class. Hilsoft Notifications has extensive experience in class action notice situations relating to prescription drugs and cases in which unknown class members need to receive notice…After reviewing the individual mailed Notice, the publication Notices, the PSAs and the informational release, the Court concludes that the substance of the Notice provided to members of the End-Payor Class in this case was adequate to satisfy the concerns of due process and the Federal Rules.

Judge Douglas Combs, Morris v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., (Feb. 22, 2005) CJ-03-714 (D. Okla.):

I am very impressed that the notice was able to reach – be delivered to 97 ½ percent members of the class. That, to me, is admirable. And I’m also – at the time that this was initially entered, I was concerned about the ability of notice to be understood by a common, nonlawyer person, when we talk about legalese in a

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

27 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 43 of 91

court setting. In this particular notice, not only the summary notice but even the long form of the notice were easily understandable, for somebody who could read the English language, to tell them whether or not they had the opportunity to file a claim.

Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, In re Serzone Products Liability Litigation, (2005) 231 F.R.D. 221, 231 (S.D. W. Va.):

The Notice Plan was drafted by Hilsoft Notifications, a Pennsylvania firm specializing in designing, developing, analyzing and implementing large-scale, unbiased legal notification plans. Hilsoft has disseminated class action notices in more than 150 cases, and it designed the model notices currently displayed on the Federal Judicial Center’s website as a template for others to follow…To enhance consumer exposure, Hilsoft studied the demographics and readership of publications among adults who used a prescription drug for depression in the last twelve months. Consequently, Hilsoft chose to utilize media particularly targeting women due to their greater incidence of depression and heavy usage of the medication.

Judge Richard G. Stearns, In re Lupron® Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation, (Nov. 24, 2004) MDL No. 1430 (D. Mass.):

After review of the proposed Notice Plan designed by Hilsoft Notifications…is hereby found to be the best practicable notice under the circumstances and, when completed, shall constitute due and sufficient notice of the Settlement and the Fairness Hearing to all persons and entities affected by and/or entitled to participate in the Settlement, in full compliance with the notice requirements of Rule 23 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process.

Judge Richard G. Stearns, In re Lupron® Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation, (Nov. 23, 2004) MDL No. 1430 (D. Mass.):

I actually find the [notice] plan as proposed to be comprehensive and extremely sophisticated and very likely be as comprehensive as any plan of its kind could be in reaching those most directly affected.

Judge James S. Moody, Jr., Mantzouris v. Scarritt Motor Group Inc., (Aug. 10, 2004) 8:03 CV- 0015-T-30 (M.D. Fla.):

Due and adequate notice of the proceedings having been given and a full opportunity having been offered to the members of the Class to participate in the Settlement Hearing, or object to the certification of the Class and the Agreement, it is hereby determined that all members of the Class, except for Ms. Gwendolyn Thompson, who was the sole person opting out of the Settlement Agreement, are bound by this Order and Final Judgment entered herein.

Judge Robert E. Payne, Fisher v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., (July 1, 2004) 3:02CV431 (E.D. Va.):

The record here shows that the class members have been fully and fairly notified of the existence of the class action, of the issues in it, of the approaches taken by each side in it in such a way as to inform meaningfully those whose rights are affected and to thereby enable them to exercise their rights intelligently…The success rate in notifying the class is, I believe, at least in my experience, I share Ms. Kauffman’s experience, it is as great as I have ever seen in practicing or serving in this job…So I don’t believe we could have had any more effective notice.

Judge John Kraetzer, Baiz v. Mountain View Cemetery, (Apr. 14, 2004) 809869-2 (Cal. Super. Ct.):

The notice program was timely completed, complied with California Government Code section 6064, and provided the best practicable notice to all members of the Settlement Class under the circumstances. The Court finds that the notice program provided class members with adequate instructions and a variety of means to obtain information pertaining to their rights and obligations under the settlement so that a full opportunity has been afforded to class members and all other persons wishing to be heard…The Court has determined that the Notice given to potential members of the Settlement Class fully and accurately informed potential Members of the Settlement Class of all material elements of the proposed settlement and constituted valid, due, and sufficient notice to all potential members of the Settlement Class, and that it constituted the best practicable notice under the circumstances.

Hospitality Mgmt. Assoc., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., (2004) 356 S.C. 644, 663, 591 S.E.2d 611, 621 (Sup. Ct. S.C.):

Clearly, the Cox court designed and utilized various procedural safeguards to guarantee sufficient notice under the circumstances. Pursuant to a limited scope of review, we need go no further in deciding the Cox court's findings that notice met due process are entitled to deference.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

28 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 44 of 91

Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, In re Serzone Prods. Liability Litigation, (2004) U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28297 (S.D. W. Va.):

The Court has considered the Notice Plan and proposed forms of Notice and Summary Notice submitted with the Memorandum for Preliminary Approval and finds that the forms and manner of notice proposed by Plaintiffs and approved herein meet the requirements of due process and Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c) and (e), are the best notice practicable under the circumstances, constitute sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice, and satisfy the Constitutional requirements of notice.

Judge James D. Arnold, Cotten v. Ferman Mgmt. Servs. Corp., (Nov. 26, 2003) 02-08115 (Fla. Cir. Ct.):

Due and adequate notice of the proceedings having been given and a full opportunity having been offered to the member of the Class to participate in the Settlement Hearing, or object to the certification of the Class and the Agreement…

Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., (Nov. 26, 2003) 00-22876 (Bankr.W.D. Pa.):

The procedures and form of notice for notifying the holders of Asbestos PI Trust Claims, as described in the Motion, adequately protect the interests of the holders of Asbestos PI Trust Claims in a manner consistent with the principles of due process, and satisfy the applicable requirements of the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

Judge Carter Holly, Richison v. American Cemwood Corp., (Nov. 18, 2003) 005532 (Cal. Super. Ct.):

As to the forms of Notice, the Court finds and concludes that they fully apprised the Class members of the pendency of the litigation, the terms of the Phase 2 Settlement, and Class members’ rights and options…Not a single Class member—out of an estimated 30,000—objected to the terms of the Phase 2 Settlement Agreement, notwithstanding a comprehensive national Notice campaign, via direct mail and publication Notice…The notice was reasonable and the best notice practicable under the circumstances, was due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all Class members, and complied fully with the laws of the State of California, the Code of Civil Procedure, due process, and California Rules of Court 1859 and 1860.

Judge Thomas A. Higgins, In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., (June 13, 2003) MDL No. 1227 (M.D. Tenn.):

Notice of the settlement has been given in an adequate and sufficient manner. The notice provided by mailing the settlement notice to certain class members and publishing notice in the manner described in the settlement was the best practicable notice, complying in all respects with the requirements of due process.

Judge Harold Baer, Jr., Thompson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., (2003) 216 F.R.D. 55, 68 (S.D.N.Y.):

In view of the extensive notice campaign waged by the defendant, the extremely small number of class members objecting or requesting exclusion from the settlement is a clear sign of strong support for the settlement…The notice provides, in language easily understandable to a lay person, the essential terms of the settlement, including the claims asserted…who would be covered by the settlement…[T]he notice campaign that defendant agreed to undertake was extensive…I am satisfied, having reviewed the contents of the notice package, and the extensive steps taken to disseminate notice of the settlement, that the class notice complies with the requirements of Rule 23 (c)(2) and 23(e). In summary, I have reviewed all of the objections, and none persuade me to conclude that the proposed settlement is unfair, inadequate or unreasonable.

Judge Edgar E. Bayley, Dimitrios v. CVS, Inc., (Nov. 27, 2002) 99-6209; Walker v. Rite Aid Corp., 99-6210; and Myers v. Rite Aid Corp., 01-2771 (Pa. Ct. C.P.):

The Court specifically finds that: fair and adequate notice has been given to the class, which comports with due process of law.

Judge Dewey C. Whitenton, Ervin v. Movie Gallery, Inc., (Nov. 22, 2002) 13007 (Tenn. Ch.):

The content of the class notice also satisfied all due process standards and state law requirements…The content of the notice was more than adequate to enable class members to make an informed and intelligent choice about remaining in the class or opting out of the class.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

29 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 45 of 91

Judge James R. Williamson, Kline v. The Progressive Corp., (Nov. 14, 2002) 01-L-6 (Ill. Cir. Ct.):

Notice to the Settlement Class was constitutionally adequate, both in terms of its substance and the manner in which it was disseminated. The notice contained the essential elements necessary to satisfy due process…

Judge Marina Corodemus, Talalai v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., (Sept. 13, 2002) L-008830.00 (N.J. Super. Ct.):

Here, the comprehensive bilingual, English and Spanish, court-approved Notice Plan provided by the terms of the settlement meets due process requirements. The Notice Plan used a variety of methods to reach potential class members. For example, short form notices for print media were placed…throughout the United States and in major national consumer publications which include the most widely read publications among Cooper Tire owner demographic groups.

Judge Harold Baer, Jr., Thompson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., (Sept. 3, 2002) 00 Civ. 5071-HB (S.D.N.Y.):

The Court further finds that the Class Notice and Publication Notice provided in the Settlement Agreement are written in plain English and are readily understandable by Class Members. In sum, the Court finds that the proposed notice texts and methodology are reasonable, that they constitute due, adequate and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to be provided with notice, and that they meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (including Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) and (e)), the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), the Rules of the Court, and any other applicable law.

Judge Milton Gunn Shuffield, Scott v. Blockbuster Inc., (Jan. 22, 2002) D 162-535 (Tex. Jud. Dist. Ct.) ultimately withstood challenge to Court of Appeals of Texas. Peters v. Blockbuster 65 S.W.3d 295, 307 (Tex. App.-Beaumont, 2001):

In order to maximize the efficiency of the notice, a professional concern, Hilsoft Notifications, was retained. This Court concludes that the notice campaign was the best practicable, reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the settlement and afford them an opportunity to present their objections…The notice campaign was highly successful and effective, and it more than satisfied the due process and state law requirements for class notice.

Judge Marina Corodemus, Talalai v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., (Oct. 30, 2001) MID-L-8839-00-MT (N.J. Super. Ct.):

The parties have crafted a notice program which satisfies due process requirements without reliance on an unreasonably burdensome direct notification process…The form of the notice is reasonably calculated to apprise class members of their rights. The notice program is specifically designed to reach a substantial percentage of the putative settlement class members.

Judge Marina Corodemus, Talalai v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., (Oct. 29, 2001) L-8830-00-MT (N.J. Super. Ct.):

I saw the various bar graphs for the different publications and the different media dissemination, and I think that was actually the clearest bar graph I’ve ever seen in my life…it was very clear of the time periods that you were doing as to each publication and which media you were doing over what market time, so I think that was very clear.

Judge Stuart R. Pollak, Microsoft I-V Cases, (Apr. 1, 2001) J.C.C.P. CJC-00-004106 (Cal. Super. Ct.):

[C]oncerning dissemination of class notice; and I have reviewed the materials that have been submitted on that subject and basically I’m satisfied. I think it’s amazing if you’re really getting 80 percent coverage. That’s very reassuring. And the papers that you submitted responded to a couple things that had been mentioned before and I am satisfied with all that.

Judge Stuart R. Pollak, Microsoft I-V Cases, (Mar. 30, 2001) J.C.C.P. 4106 (Cal. Super. Ct.):

Plaintiffs and Defendant Microsoft Corporation have submitted a joint statement in support of their request that the Court approve the plan for dissemination of class action notice and proposed forms of notice, and amend the class definition. The Court finds that the forms of notice to Class members attached hereto as Exhibits A and B fairly and adequately inform the Class members of their rights concerning this litigation. The Court further finds that the methods for dissemination of notice are the fairest and best practicable under the circumstances, and comport with due process requirements.

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

30 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 46 of 91

LEGAL NOTICE CASES

Hilsoft has served as a notice expert for planning, implementation and/or analysis in the following partial list of cases:

Andrews v. MCI (900 Number Litigation) S.D. Ga., No. CV 191-175

Harper v. MCI (900 Number Litigation) S.D. Ga., No. CV 192-134

In re Bausch & Lomb Contact Lens Litigation N.D. Ala., No. 94-C-1144-WW

In re Ford Motor Co. Vehicle Paint Litigation E.D. La., MDL No. 1063

Castano v. Am. Tobacco E.D. La., No. CV 94-1044

Cox v. Shell Oil (Polybutylene Pipe Litigation) Tenn. Ch., No. 18,844

In re Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litigation N.D. Ill., MDL No. 1083

In re Dow Corning Corp. (Breast Implant Bankruptcy) E.D. Mich., No. 95-20512-11-AJS

Kunhel v. CNA Ins. Companies N.J. Super. Ct., No. ATL-C-0184-94

In re Factor Concentrate Blood Prods. Litigation N.D. Ill., MDL No. 986 (Hemophiliac HIV)

In re Ford Ignition Switch Prods. Liability Litigation D. N.J., No. 96-CV-3125

Jordan v. A.A. Friedman (Non-Filing Ins. Litigation) M.D. Ga., No. 95-52-COL

Kalhammer v. First USA (Credit Card Litigation) Cal. Cir. Ct., No. C96-45632010-CAL

Navarro-Rice v. First USA (Credit Card Litigation) Ore. Cir. Ct., No. 9709-06901

Spitzfaden v. Dow Corning (Breast Implant Litigation) La. D. Ct., No. 92-2589

Robinson v. Marine Midland (Finance Charge Litigation) N.D. Ill., No. 95 C 5635

McCurdy v. Norwest Fin. Alabama Ala. Cir. Ct., No. CV-95-2601

Johnson v. Norwest Fin. Alabama Ala. Cir. Ct., No. CV-93-PT-962-S

In re Residential Doors Antitrust Litigation E.D. Pa., MDL No. 1039

Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co. Inc. E.D. Pa., No. 96-5903

Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. Inc. N.Y. Super. Ct., No. 110949/96

Naef v. Masonite Corp (Hardboard Siding Litigation) Ala. Cir. Ct., No. CV-94-4033

In re Synthroid Mktg. Litigation N.D. Ill., MDL No. 1182

Raysick v. Quaker State Slick 50 Inc. D. Tex., No. 96-12610

Castillo v. Mike Tyson (Tyson v. Holyfield Bout) N.Y. Super. Ct., No. 114044/97

Avery v. State Farm Auto. Ins. (Non-OEM Auto Parts) Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 97-L-114

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

31 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 47 of 91

Walls v. The Am. Tobacco Co. Inc. N.D. Okla., No. 97-CV-218

Tempest v. Rainforest Café (Securities Litigation) D. Minn., No. 98-CV-608

Stewart v. Avon Prods. (Securities Litigation) E.D. Pa., No. 98-CV-4135

Goldenberg v. Marriott PLC Corp (Securities Litigation) D. Md., No. PJM 95-3461

Delay v. Hurd Millwork (Building Products Litigation) Wash. Super. Ct., No. 97-2-07371-0

Gutterman v. Am. Airlines (Frequent Flyer Litigation) Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 95CH982

Hoeffner v. The Estate of Alan Kenneth Vieira (Un-scattered Cal. Super. Ct., No. 97-AS 02993 Cremated Remains Litigation)

In re Graphite Electrodes Antitrust Litigation E.D. Pa., MDL No. 1244

In re Silicone Gel Breast Implant Prods. Liability Litigation, N.D. Ala., MDL No. 926 Altrichter v. INAMED

St. John v. Am. Home Prods. Corp. (Fen/Phen Litigation) Wash. Super. Ct., No. 97-2-06368

Crane v. Hackett Assocs. (Securities Litigation) E.D. Pa., No. 98-5504

In re Holocaust Victims Assets Litigation (Swiss Banks) E.D.N.Y., No. CV-96-4849

McCall v. John Hancock (Settlement Death Benefits) N.M. Cir. Ct., No. CV-2000-2818

Williams v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (Hardboard Siding Litigation) Cal. Super. Ct., No. CV-995787

Kapustin v. YBM Magnex Int’l Inc. (Securities Litigation) E.D. Pa., No. 98-CV-6599

Leff v. YBM Magnex Int’l Inc. (Securities Litigation) E.D. Pa., No. 95-CV-89

In re PRK/LASIK Consumer Litigation Cal. Super. Ct., No. CV-772894

Hill v. Galaxy Cablevision N.D. Miss., No. 1:98CV51-D-D

Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co. Inc. La. D. Ct., No. 96-8461

Jacobs v. Winthrop Financial Associates (Securities D. Mass., No. 99-CV-11363 Litigation) Int’l Comm’n on Holocaust Era Ins. Claims – Worldwide Former Secretary of State Lawrence Outreach Program Eagleburger Commission

Bownes v. First USA Bank (Credit Card Litigation) Ala. Cir. Ct., No. CV-99-2479-PR

Whetman v. IKON (ERISA Litigation) E.D. Pa., No. 00-87

Mangone v. First USA Bank (Credit Card Litigation) Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 99AR672a

In re Babcock and Wilcox Co. (Asbestos Related E.D. La., No. 00-10992 Bankruptcy) Barbanti v. W.R. Grace and Co. (Zonolite / Asbestos Wash. Super. Ct., No. 00201756-6 Litigation)

Brown v. Am. Tobacco Cal. Super. Ct., No. J.C.C.P. 4042,711400

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

32 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 48 of 91

Wilson v. Servier Canada Inc. (Canadian Fen/Phen Ont. Super. Ct., No. 98-CV-158832 Litigation)

S.D.N.Y. No. 87 B 20142, No. 87 B In re Texaco Inc. (Bankruptcy) 20143, No. 87 B 20144

Olinde v. Texaco (Bankruptcy, Oil Lease Litigation) M.D. La., No. 96-390

Gustafson v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Recall Related S.D. Ill., No. 00-612-DRH Litigation)

In re Bridgestone/Firestone Tires Prods. Liability Litigation S.D. Ind., MDL No. 1373

Gaynoe v. First Union Corp. (Credit Card Litigation) N.C. Super. Ct., No. 97-CVS-16536

Carson v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. (Fuel O-Rings Litigation) W.D. Tenn., No. 99-2896 TU A

Providian Credit Card Cases Cal. Super. Ct., No. J.C.C.P. 4085

Fields v. Great Spring Waters of Am., Inc. (Bottled Water Cal. Super. Ct., No. 302774 Litigation) Sanders v. Great Spring Waters of Am., Inc. (Bottled Water Cal. Super. Ct., No. 303549 Litigation)

Sims v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Diminished Auto Value Litigation) Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 99-L-393A

Peterson v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (Diminished Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 99-L-394A Auto Value Litigation) Microsoft I-V Cases (Antitrust Litigation Mirroring Justice Cal. Super. Ct., No. J.C.C.P. 4106 Dept.) Westman v. Rogers Family Funeral Home, Inc. (Remains Cal. Super. Ct., No. C-98-03165 Handling Litigation)

Rogers v. Clark Equipment Co. Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 97-L-20

Garrett v. Hurley State Bank (Credit Card Litigation) Miss. Cir. Ct., No. 99-0337

Ragoonanan v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (Firesafe Cigarette Ont. Super. Ct., No. 00-CV-183165 CP Litigation)

Dietschi v. Am. Home Prods. Corp. (PPA Litigation) W.D. Wash., No. C01-0306L

Dimitrios v. CVS, Inc. (PA Act 6 Litigation) Pa. C.P., No. 99-6209

Jones v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (Inkjet Cartridge Litigation) Cal. Super. Ct., No. 302887

In re Tobacco Cases II (California Tobacco Litigation) Cal. Super. Ct., No. J.C.C.P. 4042

Scott v. Blockbuster, Inc. (Extended Viewing Fees 136th Tex. Jud. Dist., No. D 162-535 Litigation)

Anesthesia Care Assocs. v. Blue Cross of Cal. Cal. Super. Ct., No. 986677

Ting v. AT&T (Mandatory Arbitration Litigation) N.D. Cal., No. C-01-2969-BZ

In re W.R. Grace & Co. (Asbestos Related Bankruptcy) Bankr. D. Del., No. 01-01139-JJF

Talalai v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. (Tire Layer Adhesion N.J. Super. Ct.,, No. MID-L-8839-00 MT Litigation)

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

33 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 49 of 91

Kent v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. (Jeep Grand Cherokee Park- N.D. Cal., No. C01-3293-JCS to-Reverse Litigation) Int’l Org. of Migration – German Forced Labour Geneva, Switzerland Compensation Programme Madsen v. Prudential Federal Savings & Loan 3rd Jud. Dist. Ct. Utah, No. C79-8404 (Homeowner’s Loan Account Litigation) Cal. Super. Ct., No. GIC 765441, No. GIC Bryant v. Wyndham Int’l., Inc. (Energy Surcharge Litigation) 777547

In re USG Corp. (Asbestos Related Bankruptcy) Bankr. D. Del., No. 01-02094-RJN

Thompson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Race Related Sales S.D.N.Y., No. 00-CIV-5071 Practices Litigation)

Ervin v. Movie Gallery Inc. (Extended Viewing Fees) Tenn. Ch., No. CV-13007

Peters v. First Union Direct Bank (Credit Card Litigation) M.D. Fla., No. 8:01-CV-958-T-26 TBM

National Socialist Era Compensation Fund Republic of Austria

In re Baycol Litigation D. Minn., MDL No. 1431

Claims Conference–Jewish Slave Labour Outreach Program German Government Initiative

Wells v. Chevy Chase Bank (Credit Card Litigation) Md. Cir. Ct., No. C-99-000202

Walker v. Rite Aid of PA, Inc. (PA Act 6 Litigation) C.P. Pa., No. 99-6210

Myers v. Rite Aid of PA, Inc. (PA Act 6 Litigation) C.P. Pa., No. 01-2771

In re PA Diet Drugs Litigation C.P. Pa., No. 9709-3162

Harp v. Qwest Communications (Mandatory Arbitration Lit.) Ore. Circ. Ct., No. 0110-10986

Tuck v. Whirlpool Corp. & Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Microwave Ind. Cir. Ct., No. 49C01-0111-CP-002701 Recall Litigation) 1st Jud. D.C. N.M., No. D-0101-CV- Allison v. AT&T Corp. (Mandatory Arbitration Litigation) 20020041

Kline v. The Progressive Corp. Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 01-L-6

Baker v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc. & Dominick’s Finer Foods, Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 00-L-9664 Inc. (Milk Price Fixing) In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. (Billing Practices M.D. Tenn., MDL No. 1227 Litigation)

Foultz v. Erie Ins. Exchange (Auto Parts Litigation) C.P. Pa., No. 000203053

Soders v. General Motors Corp. (Marketing Initiative C.P. Pa., No. CI-00-04255 Litigation)

Nature Guard Cement Roofing Shingles Cases Cal. Super. Ct., No. J.C.C.P. 4215

Curtis v. Hollywood Entm’t Corp. (Additional Rental Wash. Super. Ct., No. 01-2-36007-8 Charges)

Defrates v. Hollywood Entm’t Corp. Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 02L707

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

34 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 50 of 91

Pease v. Jasper Wyman & Son, Merrill Blueberry Farms Inc., Me. Super. Ct., No. CV-00-015 Allen’s Blueberry Freezer Inc. & Cherryfield Foods Inc.

West v. G&H Seed Co. (Crawfish Farmers Litigation) 27th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 99-C-4984-A

Linn v. Roto-Rooter Inc. (Miscellaneous Supplies Charge) C.P. Ohio, No. CV-467403

McManus v. Fleetwood Enter., Inc. (RV Brake Litigation) D. Ct. Tex., No. SA-99-CA-464-FB

Baiz v. Mountain View Cemetery (Burial Practices) Cal. Super. Ct., No. 809869-2

Stetser v. TAP Pharm. Prods, Inc. & Abbott Laboratories N.C. Super. Ct., No. 01-CVS-5268 (Lupron Price Litigation) Richison v. Am. Cemwood Corp. (Roofing Durability Cal. Super. Ct., No. 005532 Settlement)

Cotten v. Ferman Mgmt. Servs. Corp. 13th Jud. Cir. Fla., No. 02-08115

In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (Asbestos Related Bankr. W.D. Pa., No. 00-22876-JKF Bankruptcy)

Mostajo v. Coast Nat’l Ins. Co. Cal. Super. Ct., No. 00 CC 15165

Friedman v. Microsoft Corp. (Antitrust Litigation) Ariz. Super. Ct., No. CV 2000-000722

Multinational Outreach - East Germany Property Claims Claims Conference

Davis v. Am. Home Prods. Corp. (Norplant Contraceptive D. La., No. 94-11684 Litigation) Walker v. Tap Pharmaceutical Prods., Inc. (Lupron Price N.J. Super. Ct., No. CV CPM-L-682-01 Litigation)

Munsey v. Cox Communications (Late Fee Litigation) Civ. D. La., No. Sec. 9, 97 19571

Gordon v. Microsoft Corp. (Antitrust Litigation) 4th Jud. D. Ct. Minn., No. 00-5994

Clark v. Tap Pharmaceutical Prods., Inc. 5th Dist. App. Ct. Ill., No. 5-02-0316

Fisher v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. E.D. Va., No. 3:02-CV-431

Mantzouris v. Scarritt Motor Group, Inc. M.D. Fla., No. 8:03-CV-0015-T-30-MSS

W. Va. Cir. Ct., No. 01-C-1530, 1531, Johnson v. Ethicon, Inc. (Product Liability Litigation) 1533, No. 01-C-2491 to 2500

Schlink v. Edina Realty Title 4th Jud. D. Ct. Minn., No. 02-018380

Tawney v. Columbia Natural Res. (Oil & Gas Lease W. Va. Cir. Ct., No. 03-C-10E Litigation) White v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (Pre-Payment Penalty 4th Jud. D. Ct. Minn., No. CT 03-1282 Litigation) Acacia Media Techs. Corp. v. Cybernet Ventures Inc., C.D. Cal., No. SACV03-1803 (Patent Infringement Litigation)

Bardessono v. Ford Motor Co. (15 Passenger Vans) Wash. Super. Ct., No. 32494

Gardner v. Stimson Lumber Co. (Forestex Siding Litigation) Wash. Super. Ct., No. 00-2-17633-3SEA

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

35 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 51 of 91

Poor v. Sprint Corp. (Fiber Optic Cable Litigation) Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 99-L-421

Thibodeau v. Comcast Corp. E.D. Pa., No. 04-CV-1777

Cazenave v. Sheriff Charles C. Foti (Strip Search Litigation) E.D. La., No. 00-CV-1246

National Assoc. of Police Orgs., Inc. v. Second Chance Mich. Cir. Ct., No. 04-8018 Body Armor, Inc. (Bullet Proof Vest Litigation)

Nichols v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (Paxil) E.D. Pa., No. 00-6222

Yacout v. Federal Pacific Electric Co. (Circuit Breaker) N.J. Super. Ct., No. MID-L-2904-97

Lewis v. Bayer AG (Baycol) 1st Jud. Dist. Ct. Pa., No. 002353

In re Educ. Testing Serv. PLT 7-12 Test Scoring Litigation E.D. La., MDL No. 1643

Stefanyshyn v. Consol. Indus. Corp. (Heat Exchanger) Ind. Super. Ct., No. 79 D 01-9712-CT-59

Barnett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wash. Super. Ct., No. 01-2-24553-8

In re Serzone Prods. Liability Litigation S.D. W. Va., MDL No. 1477

Ford Explorer Cases Cal. Super. Ct., No. J.C.C.P. 4226 & 4270

In re Solutia Inc. (Bankruptcy) S.D.N.Y., No. 03-17949

In re Lupron Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation D. Mass., MDL No. 1430

Morris v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. D. Okla., No. CJ-03-714

Bowling, et al. v. Pfizer Inc. (Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave S.D. Ohio, No. C-1-91-256 Heart Valve)

Thibodeaux v. Conoco Philips Co. D. La., No. 2003-481

Morrow v. Conoco Inc. D. La., No. 2002-3860

Tobacco Farmer Transition Program U.S. Dept. of Agric.

Perry v. Mastercard Int’l Inc. Ariz. Super. Ct., No. CV2003-007154

Brown v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. C.D. La., No. 02-13738

In re Unum Provident Corp. D. Tenn., No. 1:03-CV-1000

In re Ephedra Prods. Liability Litigation D.N.Y., MDL No. 1598

Chesnut v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. Ohio C.P., No. 460971

Froeber v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. Ore. Cir. Ct., No. 00C15234

Luikart v. Wyeth Am. Home Prods. (Hormone Replacement) W. Va. Cir. Ct., No. 04-C-127

Salkin v. MasterCard Int’l Inc. (Pennsylvania) Pa. C.P., No. 2648

Rolnik v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc. N.J. Super. Ct., No. L-180-04

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

36 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 52 of 91

Singleton v. Hornell Brewing Co. Inc. (Arizona Ice Tea) Cal. Super. Ct., BC No. 288 754

Becherer v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc. Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 02-L140

Clearview Imaging v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co. Fla. Cir. Ct., No. 03-4174

Mehl v. Canadian Pacific Railway, Ltd D.N.D., No. A4-02-009

Murray v. IndyMac Bank. F.S.B N.D. Ill., No. 04 C 7669

Gray v. New Hampshire Indemnity Co., Inc. Ark. Cir. Ct., No. CV-2002-952-2-3

George v. Ford Motor Co. M.D. Tenn., No. 3:04-0783

Allen v. Monsanto Co. W. Va. Cir. Ct., No. 041465

Carter v. Monsanto Co. W. Va. Cir. Ct., No. 00-C-300

Carnegie v. Household Int’l, Inc. N. D. Ill., No. 98-C-2178

Daniel v. AON Corp. Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 99 CH 11893

In re Royal Ahold Securities and “ERISA” Litigation D. Md., MDL No. 1539

In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price D. Mass., MDL No. 1456 Litigation

Meckstroth v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. 24th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 583-318

Walton v. Ford Motor Co. Cal. Super. Ct., No. SCVSS 126737

Hill v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. Cal. Super. Ct., BC No. 194491

First State Orthopaedics et al. v. Concentra, Inc., et al. E.D. Pa. No. 2:05-CV-04951

Sauro v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. E.D. La., No. 05-4427

In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Prods. Liability Litigation E.D. La., MDL No. 1632

Homeless Shelter Compensation Program City of New York

Rosenberg v. Academy Collection Service, Inc. E.D. Pa., No. 04-CV-5585

Chapman v. Butler & Hosch, P.A. 2nd Jud. Cir. Fla., No. 2000-2879

In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation S.D.N.Y., No. 02-CIV-5571

Desportes v. American General Assurance Co. Ga. Super. Ct., No. SU-04-CV-3637

In re: Propulsid Products Liability Litigation E.D. La., MDL No. 1355

Baxter v. The Attorney General of Canada (In re Residential Ont. Super. Ct., No. 00-CV-192059 CP Schools Class Action Litigation) 13th Tenn. Jud. Dist. Ct., No. CT-002506- McNall v. Mastercard Int’l, Inc. (Currency Conversion Fees) 03 Lee v. Allstate Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 03 LK 127

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

37 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 53 of 91

Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. E.D. La., No. 2:05-CV-04206

Carter v. North Central Life Ins. Co. Ga. Super. Ct., No. SU-2006-CV-3764-6

Harper v. Equifax E.D. Pa., No. 2:04-CV-03584-TON

Beasley v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest Ark. Cir. Ct., No. CV-2005-58-1

Springer v. Biomedical Tissue Services, LTD (Human Tissue Ind. Cir. Ct., No. 1:06-CV-00332 Litigation)

Spence v. Microsoft Corp. (Antitrust Litigation) Wis. Cir. Ct., No. 00-CV-003042

Pennington v. The Coca Cola Co. (Diet Coke) Mo. Cir. Ct., No. 04-CV-208580

Sunderman v. Regeneration Technologies, Inc. (Human S.D. Ohio, No. 1:06-CV-075 Tissue Litigation)

Splater v. Thermal Ease Hydronic Systems, Inc. Wash. Super. Ct., No. 03-2-33553-3-SEA

Peyroux v. The United States of America (New Orleans E.D. La., No. 06-2317 Levee Breech)

Chambers v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (Neon Head Gaskets) N.C. Super. Ct., No. 01:CVS-1555

Ciabattari v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (Sienna Run N.D. Cal., No. C-05-04289 Flat Tires)

In re Bridgestone Securities Litigation M.D. Tenn., No. 3:01-CV-0017

In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation (Market Timing) D. Md., MDL No. 1586

Accounting Outsourcing v. Verizon Wireless M.D. La., No. 03-CV-161

Hensley v. Computer Sciences Corp. Ark. Cir. Ct., No. CV-2005-59-3

Peek v. Microsoft Corporation Ark. Cir. Ct., No. CV-2006-2612

Reynolds v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. D. Ore., No. CV-01-1529

Schwab v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. E.D.N.Y., No. CV-04-1945

Zarebski v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest Ark. Cir. Ct., No. CV-2006-409-3

In re Parmalat Securities Litigation S.D.N.Y., MDL No. 1653

Beasley v. The Reliable Life Insurance Co. Ark. Cir. Ct., No. CV-2005-58-1

Sweeten v. American Empire Insurance Company Ark. Cir. Ct., No. 2007-154-3

Govt. Employees Hospital Assoc. v. Serono Int., S.A. D. Mass., No. 06-CA-10613

Gunderson v. Focus Healthcare Management, Inc. 14th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 2004-2417-D

Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Associates, Inc., et al. 14th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 2004-2417-D

Perez v. Manor Care of Carrollwood 13th Jud. Cir. Fla., No. 06-00574-E

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

38 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 54 of 91

Pope v. Manor Care of Carrollwood 13th Jud. Cir. Fla., No. 06-01451-B

West v. Carfax, Inc. Ohio C.P., No. 04-CV-1898

Hunsucker v. American Standard Ins. Co. of Wisconsin Ark. Cir. Ct., No. CV-2007-155-3

In re Conagra Peanut Butter Products Liability Litigation N.D. Ga., MDL No. 1845

The People of the State of CA v. Universal Life Resources Cal. Super. Ct., No. GIC838913 (Cal DOI v. CIGNA)

Burgess v. Farmers Insurance Co., Inc. D. Okla., No. CJ-2001-292

Grays Harbor v. Carrier Corporation W.D. Wash., No. 05-05437

Perrine v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. W. Va. Cir. Ct., No. 04-C-296-2

In re Alstom SA Securities Litigation S.D.N.Y., No. 03-CV-6595

Brookshire Bros. v. Chiquita (Antitrust) S.D. Fla., No. 05-CIV-21962

Hoorman v. SmithKline Beecham Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 04-L-715

Santos v. Government of Guam (Earned Income Tax Credit) D. Guam, No. 04-00049

Johnson v. Progressive Ark. Cir. Ct., No. CV-2003-513

Bond v. American Family Insurance Co. D. Ariz., No. CV06-01249

In re SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG Litigation (Securities) S.D.N.Y., No. 04-cv-7897

Shoukry v. Fisher-Price, Inc. (Toy Safety) S.D.N.Y., No. 07-cv-7182

In re: Guidant Corp. Plantable Defibrillators Prod’s Liab. D. Minn., MDL No. 1708 Litigation

Clark v. Pfizer, Inc. (Neurontin) C.P. Pa., No. 9709-3162

Angel v. U.S. Tire Recovery (Tire Fire) W. Va. Cir. Ct., No. 06-C-855

In re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation D. Mass., MDL No. 1838

Webb v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. Ark. Cir. Ct., No. CV-2007-418-3

Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co. (Long Term Care Ins.) C.D. Cal., No. V06-2235

Palace v. DaimlerChrysler (Defective Neon Head Gaskets) Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 01-CH-13168

Lockwood v. Certegy Check Services, Inc. (Stolen Financial M.D. Fla., No. 8:07-cv-1434 Data)

Sherrill v. Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co. 18th D. Ct. Mont., No. DV-03-220

Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Assocs., Inc. (AIG) 14th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 2004-2417-D

Jones v. Dominion Resources Services, Inc. S.D. W. Va., No. 2:06-cv-00671

Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Assocs., Inc. (Wal-Mart) 14th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 2004-2417-D

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

39 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 55 of 91

In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litigation N.D. Ill., MDL No. 1350

Gudo v. The Administrator of the Tulane Ed. Fund La. D. Ct., No. 2007-C-1959

Guidry v. American Public Life Insurance Co. 14th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 2008-3465

McGee v. Continental Tire North America D.N.J., No. 2:06-CV-06234

Sims v. Rosedale Cemetery Co. W. Va. Cir. Ct., No. 03-C-506

Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Assocs., Inc. (Amerisafe) 14th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 2004-002417

In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation E.D. La., No. 05-4182

In re Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Data Theft D.D.C., MDL No. 1796 Litigation

Dolen v. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (Callable CD’s) Ill. Cir. Ct., No. 01-L-454 and No. 01-L-493

Pavlov v. CNA (Long Term Care Insurance) N.D. Ohio, No. 5:07cv2580

Steele v. Pergo( Flooring Products) D. Ore., No. 07-CV-01493-BR

Opelousas Trust Authority v. Summit Consulting 27th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 07-C-3737-B

Little v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (Braking Systems) N.J. Super. Ct., No. UNN-L-0800-01

Boone v. City of Philadelphia (Prisoner Strip Search) E.D. Pa., No. 05-CV-1851

In re Countrywide Customer Data Breach Litigation W.D. Ky., MDL No. 1998

Miller v. Basic Research (Weight-loss Supplement) D. Utah, No. 2:07-cv-00871

Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Assocs., Inc. (Cambridge) 14th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 2004-002417

Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corporation S.D.N.Y., No. 07-CV-08742

Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corporation D.N.J., No. 3:07-CV-03018

Coyle v. Hornell Brewing Co. (Arizona Iced Tea) D.N.J., No. 08-CV-2797

In re Heartland Data Security Breach Litigation S.D. Tex., MDL No. 2046

Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc. (Text Messaging) N.D. Cal., No. 06-CV-2893

Schulte v. Fifth Third Bank (Overdraft Fees) N.D. Ill., No. 1:09-CV-06655

D.D.C., No. 1:10-CV-00232 as part of MDL Trombley v. National City Bank (Overdraft Fees) 2036 (S.D. Fla.)

Vereen v. Lowe’s Home Centers (Defective Drywall) Ga. Super. Ct., No. SU10-CV-2267B

D. Conn, No. 3:10-cv-01448 as part MDL Mathena v. Webster Bank, N.A. (Overdraft Fees) 2036 (S.D. Fla.)

Delandro v. County of Allegheny (Prisoner Strip Search) W.D. Pa., No. 2:06-cv-00927

Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Assocs., Inc. (First Health) 14th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 2004-002417

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

40 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 56 of 91

Williams v. Hammerman & Gainer, Inc. (Hammerman) 27th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 11-C-3187-B

Williams v. Hammerman & Gainer, Inc. (Risk Management) 27th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 11-C-3187-B

Williams v. Hammerman & Gainer, Inc. (SIF Consultants) 27th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 11-C-3187-B

Gwiazdowski v. County of Chester (Prisoner Strip Search) E.D. Pa., No. 2:08cv4463

Williams v. S.I.F. Consultants (CorVel Corporation) 27th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 09-C-5244-C

Sachar v. Iberiabank Corporation (Overdraft Fees) S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036

LaCour v. Whitney Bank (Overdraft Fees) M.D. Fla., No. 8:11cv1896

Lawson v. BancorpSouth (Overdraft Fees) W.D. Ark., No. 1:12cv1016

McKinley v. Great Western Bank (Overdraft Fees) S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036

Wolfgeher v. Commerce Bank (Overdraft Fees) S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036

Harris v. Associated Bank (Overdraft Fees) S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036

Case v. Bank of Oklahoma (Overdraft Fees) S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036

Nelson v. Rabobank, N.A. (Overdraft Fees) Cal. Super. Ct., No. RIC 1101391

Fontaine v. Attorney General of Canada (Stirland Lake and Ont. Super. Ct., No. 00-CV-192059 CP Cristal Lake Residential Schools)

Opelousas General Hospital Authority v. FairPay Solutions 27th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 12-C-1599-C

Marolda v. Symantec Corporation (Software Upgrades) N.D. Cal., No. 3:08-cv-05701

In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010—Economic and Property E.D. La., MDL No. 2179 Damages Settlement In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf E.D. La., MDL No. 2179 of Mexico, on April 20, 2010—Medical Benefits Settlement Vodanovich v. Boh Brothers Construction (Hurricane E.D. La., No. 05-cv-4191 Katrina Levee Breaches)

Gessele et al. v. Jack in the Box, Inc. D. Ore., No. 3:10-cv-960

RBS v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (Overdraft Fees) S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation (Mastercard & Visa) – 2013 & 2019 E.D.N.Y., MDL No. 1720 Notice Programs

Saltzman v. Pella Corporation (Building Products) N.D. Ill., No. 06-cv-4481

In re Zurn Pex Plumbing, Products Liability Litigation D. Minn., MDL No. 1958

Blahut v. Harris, N.A. (Overdraft Fees) S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036

Eno v. M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank (Overdraft Fees) S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

41 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 57 of 91

Casayuran v. PNC Bank (Overdraft Fees) S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036

Anderson v. Compass Bank (Overdraft Fees) S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036

Evans, et al. v. TIN, Inc. (Environmental) E.D. La. No. 2:11-cv-02067

Opelousas General Hospital Authority v. Qmedtrix 27th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 12-C-1599-C Systems, Inc.

Williams v. SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc. et al. 27th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 09-C-5244-C

Miner v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. et al. Ark. Cir. Ct., No. 60CV03-4661

Fontaine v. Attorney General of Canada (Mistassini Hostels Qué. Super. Ct., No. 500-06-000293-056 Residential Schools) & No. 550-06-000021-056 (Hull) Ont. Super. Ct., No. CV-11-4322294- Glube et al. v. Pella Corporation et al. (Building Products) 00CP

Yarger v. ING Bank D. Del., No. 11-154-LPS

Price v. BP Products North America N.D. Ill, No. 12-cv-06799

National Trucking Financial Reclamation Services, LLC et E.D. Ark., No. 4:13-cv-00250 al. v. Pilot Corporation et al.

Johnson v. Community Bank, N.A. et al. (Overdraft Fees) M.D. Pa., No. 3:12-cv-01405

Rose v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. (TCPA) N.D. Cal., No. 11-cv-02390

McGann, et al., v. Schnuck Markets, Inc. (Data Breach) Mo. Cir. Ct., No. 1322-CC00800

Simmons v. Comerica Bank, N.A. (Overdraft Fees) S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036

George Raymond Williams, M.D., Orthopedic Surgery, a 27th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 09-C-5242-B Professional Medical, LLC, et al. v. Bestcomp, Inc., et al.

Simpson v. Citizens Bank (Overdraft Fees) E.D. Mich, No. 2:12-cv-10267

In re Plasma-Derivative Protein Therapies Antitrust N.D. Ill, No. 09-CV-7666 Litigation

In re Dow Corning Corporation (Breast Implants) E.D. Mich., No. 00-X-0005

Mello et al v. Susquehanna Bank (Overdraft Fees) S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036

Wong et al. v. Alacer Corp. (Emergen-C) Cal. Super. Ct., No. CGC-12-519221

In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules E.D.N.Y., 11-MD-2221, MDL No. 2221 Antitrust Litigation (II) (Italian Colors Restaurant)

Costello v. NBT Bank (Overdraft Fees) Sup. Ct. Del Cnty., N.Y., No. 2011-1037

Gulbankian et al. v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. D. Mass., No. 10-CV-10392

Hawthorne v. Umpqua Bank (Overdraft Fees) N.D. Cal., No. 11-cv-06700

Civil D. Ct., Parish of Orleans, La., No. Smith v. City of New Orleans 2005-05453

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

42 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 58 of 91

Adkins et al. v. Nestlé Purina PetCare Company et al. N.D. Ill., No. 1:12-cv-02871

Ore. Cir., County of Multnomah, No. 1112- Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC 17046 Given v. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company a/k/a S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036 M&T Bank (Overdraft Fees) In re MI Windows and Doors Products Liability Litigation D. S.C., MDL No. 2333 (Building Products)

Childs et al. v. Synovus Bank, et al. (Overdraft Fees) S.D. Fla., MDL No. 2036

E.D. La., No. 2:10-cv-01505 as part of S.D. Steen v. Capital One, N.A. (Overdraft Fees) Fla., MDL No. 2036 12th Jud. Cir. Ct., Sarasota Cnty, Fla., Kota of Sarasota, Inc. v. Waste Management Inc. of Florida No. 2011-CA-008020NC In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010—Economic and Property E.D. La., MDL No. 2179 Damages Settlement (Claim Deadline Notice)

Dorothy Williams d/b/a Dot’s Restaurant v. Waste Away Cir. Ct., Lawrence Cnty, Ala., No. 42-cv- Group, Inc. 2012- 900001.00

In re: Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al. (Asbestos Claims Bankr. D. Del., No. 14-10979 Bar Notice)

Gattinella v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc., et al. S.D.N.Y., No. 14-civ-5731

Kerry T. Thibodeaux, M.D. (A Professional Medical 27th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 13-C-3212 Corporation) v. American Lifecare, Inc.

Russell Minoru Ono v. Head Racquet Sports USA C.D.Cal., No. 2:13-cv-04222

Opelousas General Hospital Authority v. PPO Plus, L.L.C., 27th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 13-C-5380 et al.

In re: Shop-Vac Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation M.D. Pa., MDL No. 2380

In re: Caterpillar, Inc. C13 and C15 Engine Products Liability D. N.J., MDL No. 2540 Litigation

In Re: Citrus Canker Litigation 11th Jud. Cir., Fla., No. 03-8255 CA 13

Whitton v. Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc., et al. D. Kan., No. 2:12-cv-02247 Gary, LLC v. Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc., et al. D. Kan., No. 2:13-cv-2634 N.D. Fla., No. 1:10-cv-00090 as part of Swift v. BancorpSouth Bank (Overdraft Fees) MDL 2036 (S.D. Fla.) Sup. Ct. Conn., No. X10-UWY-CV-12- Forgione v. Webster Bank N.A. (Overdraft Fees) 6015956-S

Small v. BOKF, N.A. D. Col., No. 13-cv-01125

Anamaria Chimeno-Buzzi & Lakedrick Reed v. Hollister Co. S.D. Fla., No. 14-cv-23120 & Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation N.D. Cal., MDL No. 2420, 4:13-MD-02420

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

43 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 59 of 91

MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance 11th Jud. Cir. Fla, No. 15-27940-CA-21 Company

Glaske v. Independent Bank Corporation (Overdraft Fees) Cir. Ct. Mich., No. 13-009983-CZ

In re: HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Checking Account Overdraft Sup. Ct. N.Y., No. 650562/11 Litigation

In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices N.D. Cal., MDL No. 2672 and Product Liability Litigation (Bosch)

Hawkins v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A., et al. (Overdraft 13th Jud. Cir. Tenn., No. CT-004085-11 Fees)

Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union v. Kmart Corp., et N.D. Ill., No. 1:15-cv-02228 al. (Data Breach)

Bias v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al. (Broker’s Price N.D. Cal., No 4:12-cv-00664 Opinions)

Klug v. Watts Regulator Company (Product Liability) D. Neb., No. 8:15-cv-00061

Ratzlaff et al. v. BOKF, NA d/b/a Bank of Oklahoma, et al. Dist. Ct. Okla., No. CJ-2015-00859 (Overdraft Fees)

Morton v. Greenbank (Overdraft Fees) 20th Jud. Dist. Tenn., No. 11-135-IV

Jacobs, et al. v. Huntington Bancshares Inc., et al. (FirstMerit Ohio C.P., No. 11CV000090 Overdraft Fees)

Farnham v. Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. (TCPA) W.D. Wis., No. 16-cv-00295

Gottlieb v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation (TCPA) S.D. Fla., No. 9:16-cv-81911

McKnight et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. N.D. Cal., No 3:14-cv-05615

Lewis v. Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization N.C. Gen. Ct of Justice, Sup. Ct. Div., No. Corporation (n/k/a United States Tobacco Cooperative, Inc.) 05 CVS 188, No. 05 CVS 1938

T.A.N. v. PNI Digital Media, Inc. S.D. GA., No. 2:16-cv-132

In re: Syngenta Litigation 4th Jud. Dist. Minn., No. 27-CV-15-3785

The Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico as representative of Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority D. Puerto Rico, No. 17-04780 (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy)

Reilly v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. S.D. Fla., No. 1:15-cv-23425

Ma et al. v. Harmless Harvest Inc. (Coconut Water) E.D.N.Y., No. 2:16-cv-07102

Mahoney v TT of Pine Ridge, Inc. S.D. Fla., No. 9:17-cv-80029

Sobiech v. U.S. Gas & Electric, Inc., i/t/d/b/a Pennsylvania Gas E.D. Penn., No. 2:14-cv-04464 & Electric, et al.

Alexander M. Rattner v. Tribe App., Inc., and S.D. Fla., No. 1:17-cv-21344 and Kenneth Horsley v. Tribe App., Inc., No. 1:17-cv-23111

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

44 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 60 of 91

Gordon, et al. v. Amadeus IT Group, S.A., et al. S.D.N.Y. No. 1:15-cv-05457

Masson v. Tallahassee Dodge Chrysler Jeep, LLC (TCPA) S.D. Fla., No. 1:17-cv-22967

Orlander v. Staples, Inc. S.D. NY, No. 13-CV-0703

Larey v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company W.D. Kan., No. 4:14-cv-04008

Cal. Sup. Court, County of Alameda, No. Larson v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) RG16 813803

Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, et al. v. Bank of America N.A S.D.N.Y., No. 14-cv-7126 et al. (ISDAfix Instruments)

Falco et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al. (Engine – CA & C.D. Cal., No. 2:13-cv-00686 WA)

Pantelyat, et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al. (Overdraft/Uber) S.D.N.Y., No. 16-cv-08964

In re: Parking Heaters Antitrust Litigation E.D.N.Y., No. 15-MC-0940

Wallace, et al, v. Monier Lifetile LLC, et al. Sup. Ct. Cal., No. SCV-16410

In re: Windsor Wood Clad Window Products Liability Litigation E.D. Wis., MDL No. 16-MD-02688

Farrell v. Bank of America, N.A. (Overdraft) S.D. Cal., No. 3:16-cv-00492

Hale v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, S.D. Ill., No. 12-cv-0660 et al.

Callaway v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Seat Heaters) C.D. Cal., No. 8:14-cv-02011

Poseidon Concepts Corp. et al. (Canadian Securities Ct. of QB of Alberta, No. 1301-04364 Litigation) In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation (OEMs – S.D. Fla, MDL No. 2599 BMW, Mazda, Subaru, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan) Watson v. Bank of America Corporation et al.; Sup. Ct. of B.C., No. VLC-S-S-112003; Bancroft-Snell et al. v. Visa Canada Corporation et al.; Ontario Sup. Ct., No. CV-11-426591; Bakopanos v. Visa Canada Corporation et al.; Sup. Ct. of Quebec, No. 500-06-00549- Macaronies Hair Club and Laser Center Inc. operating as Fuze 101; Ct. of QB of Alberta, No. 1203-18531; Salon v. BofA Canada Bank et al.; Ct. of QB of Saskatchewan, No. 133 of Hello Baby Equipment Inc. v. BofA Canada Bank and others 2013 (Visa and Mastercard Canadian Interchange Fees) Vergara, et al., v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (TCPA) N.D. Ill., No. 1:15-CV-06972

Ore. Cir., County of Multnomah, No. 0803- Surrett et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, et al. 03530

Underwood v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., et al. E.D. Penn., No. 2:15-cv-00730

Ajose et al. v. Interline Brands Inc. (Plumbing Fixtures) M.D. Tenn., No. 3:14-cv-01707

Gergetz v. Telenav (TCPA) N.D. Cal., No. 5:16-cv-4261

Raffin v. Medicredit, Inc., et al. C.D. Cal., No 15-cv-4912

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

45 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 61 of 91

First Impressions Salon, Inc. et al. v. National Milk Producers S.D. Ill., No. 3:13-cv-00454 Federation, et al. Abante Rooter and Plumbing v. Pivotal Payments Inc., d/b/a/ N.D. Cal., No. 3:16-cv-05486 Capital Processing Network and CPN) (TCPA)

Dipuglia v. US Coachways, Inc. (TCPA) S.D. Fla., No. 1:17-cv-23006

Knapper v. Cox Communications D. Ariz., No. 2:17-cv-00913

Martin v. Trott (MI - Foreclosure) E.D. Mich., No. 2:15-cv-12838

Cowen v. Lenny & Larry's Inc. N.D. Ill., No. 1:17-cv-01530 Al's Pals Pet Card, LLC, et al v. Woodforest National Bank, S.D. Tex., No. 4:17-cv-3852 N.A., et al. In Re: Community Health Systems, Inc. Customer Data N.D. Ala., MDL No. 2595, 2:15-CV-222 Security Breach Litigation Tashica Fulton-Green et al. v. Accolade, Inc. E.D. Penn., No. 2:18-cv-00274 37 Besen Parkway, LLC v. John Hancock Life Insurance S.D.N.Y., No. 15-cv-9924 Company (U.S.A.) Stahl v. Bank of the West Sup. Ct. Cal., No. BC673397 Parsons v. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC (Data N.D. Cal., No. 3:16-cv-05387 Breach) Waldrup v. Countrywide C.D. Cal., No. 2:13-cv-08833 In re: Valley Anesthesiology Consultants, Inc. Data Breach Sup. Ct. Cal., No. CV2016-013446 Litigation Naiman v. Total Merchant Services, Inc., et al. (TCPA) N.D. Cal., No. 4:17-cv-03806

In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation N.D. Ill., MDL No. 2817, No. 18-cv-00864

In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation N.D. Cal., No. 5:16-cv-05820

Zaklit, et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al. (TCPA) C.D. Cal., No. 5:15-CV-02190

Luib v. Henkel Consumer Goods Inc. E.D.N.Y., No. 1:17-cv-03021

Lloyd, et al. v. Navy Federal Credit Union S.D. Cal., No. 17-cv-1280

Waldrup v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. C.D. Cal., No. 2:13-cv-08833

Adlouni v. UCLA Health Systems Auxiliary, et al. Sup. Ct. Cal., No. BC589243

Di Filippo v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. (Gold Market Ontario Sup. Ct., No. CV-15-543005- Instrument) 00CP & No. CV-16-551067-00CP Ontario Sup Ct., No. CV-16-543833- 00CP; Quebec Sup. Ct of Justice, No. McIntosh v. Takata Corporation, et al.; Vitoratos, et al. v. Takata 500-06-000723-144; & Court of Queen’s Corporation, et al.; and Hall v. Takata Corporation, et al. Bench for Saskatchewan, No. QBG. 1284 or 2015 Quebec Ct., Dist. of Montreal, No. 500-06- Rabin v. HP Canada Co., et al. 000813-168 Lightsey, et al. v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, a Ct. of Com. Pleas., S.C., No. 2017-CP-25- Wholly Owned Subsidiary of SCANA, et al. 335

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

46 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 62 of 91

In re: Comcast Corp. Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust E.D. Penn., No. 2:09-md-02034 Litigation Henrikson v. Samsung Electronics Canada Inc. Ontario Sup. Ct., No. 2762-16cp

Burrow, et al. v. Forjas Taurus S.A., et al. S.D. Fla., No. 1:16-cv-21606

Waldrup v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. C.D. Cal., No. 2:13-cv-08833

Jackson v. Viking Group D. Md., No. 8:18-cv-02356

Walters v. Target Corp (Overdraft) S.D. Cal., No. 3:16-cv-1678

Skochin et al. v. Genworth Life Insurance Company, et al. E.D. Vir., No. 3:19-cv-00049 Rose et al. v. The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance E.D. Penn., No. 19-cv-977 Company Nelson v. Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. (Data N.D. Ill., No. 1:18-cv-07400 Breach) Sup. Ct, Cal., County of Riverside, In re: Renovate America Finance Cases No. RICJCCP4940

Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company, et al. C.D. Cal., No. 2:17-05290

S.D. Fla., No. 1:10-CV-22190, as part Dasher v. RBC Bank (USA) (Overdraft) MDL 2036 (S.D. Fla.) E.D. Mich., No. MDL No. 2744, 16-md- In re: FCA US LLC Monostable Electronic Gearshift Litigation 02744 Lehman v. Transbay Joint Powers Authority, et al. (Millennium Sup. Ct. of Cal., Cnty of San Fran., Tower) No. GCG-16-553758

Pirozzi, et al. v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC E.D. Mo., No. 4:19-CV- 807

Cox, et al. v. Ametek, Inc. et al. S.D. Cal., No. 3:17-cv-00597 Danielle Trujillo, et al. v. Ametek, Inc. et al (Toxic Leak) S.D. Cal., No.3:15-cv-01394

Lashambae v. Capital One (Overdraft) E.D.N.Y, No. 1:2017-cv-06406 Harris et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange and Mid Century Sup.Ct Cal., No. BC 579498 Insurance Company Grayson v. General Electric Company D. Conn., No. 3:13-cv-01799

Elder v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. N.D. Cal., No. 16-cv-00278 In Re: Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach D. Ore., No. 3:15-md-2633 Litigation Lusnak v. Bank of America, N.A. C.D. Cal., No. 14-cv-1855

Kuss v. American HomePatient, Inc. et al. M.D. Fla., No. 8:18-cv-2348

In re: Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., el al. Bankr. W.D. N.C., No. 16-31602 Stone et al. v. Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V f/k/a E.D. Tex., No. 4:17-cv-00001 Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V. a/k/a Vortens In Re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation N.D. Cal., No. 3:10-md-2143 In Re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices N.D. Cal., MDL No. 2672 and Products Liability Litigation

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

47 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 63 of 91

McKinney-Drobnis, et al. v. Massage Envy Franchising N.D. Cal., No. 3:16-cv-6450

Albrecht v. Oasis Power, LLC d/b/a Oasis Energy N.D. Ill., No. 1:18-cv-1061

Garcia v. Target Corporation (TCPA) D. Minn., No. 16-cv-02574

Liggio v. Apple Federal Credit Union E.D. Vir., No. 1:18-cv-01059

In Re: TD Bank, N.A. Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litigation D. S.C, MDL No. 2613, No. 6:15-MN-02613 Fessler v. Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V f/k/a E.D. Tex., No. 4:19-cv-00248 Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V. a/k/a Vortens D. Ct. of Travis County Tex., No. D-1-GN- Hyder, et al. v. Consumers County Mutual Insurance Company 16-000596

Audet et al. v. Garza et al. D. Conn., No. 3:16-cv-00940

In Re: Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation M.D. Fla., No. 3:15-md-2626

Coffeng v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 3:17-cv-01825

Ciuffitelli, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, et al. D. Ore., No. 3:16-cv-00580

In Re Wells Fargo Collateral Protection Insurance Litigation C.D. Cal., No. 8:17-ML-2797

Prather v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (TCPA) N.D. Ill., No. 1:17-cv-00481

Wilson et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. S.D. Fla., No. 17-cv-23033

Sup. Ct. Wash., No. 17-2-23244-1 SEA Armon et al. v. Washington State University (consolidated with No. 17-2-25052-0 SEA)

Burch v. Whirlpool Corporation W.D. Mich., No. 1:17-cv-18

Robinson v. First Hawaiian Bank (Overdraft) Cir. Ct. of First Cir. Haw., No. 17-1-0167-01

Denier, et al. v. Taconic Biosciences, Inc. Sup Ct. N.Y., No. 00255851

Hilsoft-cv-144

PORTLAND AREA OFFICE 10300 SW ALLEN BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97005 T 503-597-7697

48 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 64 of 91

Attachment 2 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 65 of 91

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3

4 PAUL IZOR, individually and on behalf of all Case No. 4:19-CV-01057-HSG others similarly situated, 5 DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE J. FIERECK, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION 6 Plaintiff, v. OF CAFA NOTICE

7 ABACUS DATA SYSTEMS INC., 8 Defendant. 9

10

11 12 I, STEPHANIE J. FIERECK, ESQ., hereby declare and state as follows: 13 1. My name is Stephanie J. Fiereck, Esq. I am over the age of 21 and I have personal 14 knowledge of the matters set forth herein, and I believe them to be true and correct. 15 2. I am the Legal Notice Manager for Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. 16 (“Epiq”), a firm that specializes in designing, developing, analyzing and implementing large-scale, 17 un-biased, legal notification plans. 18 3. Epiq is a firm with more than 20 years of experience in claims processing and 19 settlement administration. Epiq’s class action case administration services include coordination 20 of all notice requirements, design of direct-mail notices, establishment of fulfillment services, 21 receipt and processing of opt-outs, coordination with the United States Postal Service, claims 22 database management, claim adjudication, funds management and distribution services. 23 4. The facts in this Declaration are based on what I personally know, as well as 24 information provided to me in the ordinary course of my business by my colleagues at Epiq. 25 CAFA NOTICE IMPLEMENTATION 26 5. At the direction of counsel for the Defendant Abacus Data Systems Inc., 57 27 officials, which included the Attorney General of the United States, the Attorneys General of each

DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE J. FIERECK, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION OF CAFA NOTICE

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 66 of 91

1 of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the United States Territories were identified to receive 2 the CAFA notice. 3 6. Epiq maintains a list of these state and federal officials with contact information for 4 the purpose of providing CAFA notice. Prior to mailing, the names and addresses selected from 5 Epiq’s list were verified, then run through the Coding Accuracy Support System (“CASS”) 6 maintained by the United States Postal Service (“USPS”).1 7 7. On June 26, 2020, Epiq sent 57 CAFA Notice Packages (“Notice”). The Notice 8 was mailed by certified mail to 56 officials, including the Attorneys General of each of the 50 9 states, the District of Columbia and the United States Territories. The Notice was also sent by 10 United Parcel Service (“UPS”) to the Attorney General of the United States. The CAFA Notice 11 Service List (USPS Certified Mail and UPS) is included hereto as Attachment 1. 12 8. The materials sent to the officials included a cover letter, which provided notice of 13 the proposed settlement of the above-captioned case. The cover letter is included hereto as 14 Attachment 2. 15 9. The cover letter was accompanied by a CD, which included the following:

16 a. Class Action Complaint;

17 b. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion, Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval 18 of Class Action Settlement and Incorporated Memorandum of Law;

19 c. Class Action Settlement Agreement (with Exhibits);

20  Forms of Notice (As Exhibits A, B, and C to the Settlement Agreement); 21 d. [Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; and 22 e. Geographic Distribution of Class Members. 23 24

25 1 CASS improves the accuracy of carrier route, 5-digit ZIP®, ZIP + 4® and delivery point codes that appear on 26 mail pieces. The USPS makes this system available to mailing firms who want to improve the accuracy of postal ® ® 27 codes, i.e., 5-digit ZIP , ZIP + 4 , delivery point (DPCs), and carrier route codes that appear on mail pieces.

DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE J. FIERECK, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION OF CAFA NOTICE 2

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 67 of 91

1 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 2 August 31, 2020.

3

4 Stephanie J. Fiereck, Esq. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

DECLARATION OF STEPHANIE J. FIERECK, ESQ. ON IMPLEMENTATION OF CAFA NOTICE 3

Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 68 of 91

Attachment 1 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 69 of 91 CAFA Notice Service List USPS Certified Mail

Company FullName Address1 Address2 City State Zip Office of the Attorney General Kevin G Clarkson PO Box 110300 Juneau AK 99811 Office of the Attorney General Steve Marshall 501 Washington Ave Montgomery AL 36130 Office of the Attorney General Leslie Carol Rutledge 323 Center St Suite 200 Little Rock AR 72201 Office of the Attorney General Mark Brnovich 2005 N Central Ave Phoenix AZ 85004 Office of the Attorney General CAFA Coordinator Consumer Law Section 455 Golden Gate Ave Ste 11000 San Francisco CA 94102 Office of the Attorney General Phil Weiser Ralph L Carr Colorado Judicial Center 1300 Broadway 10th Fl Denver CO 80203 Office of the Attorney General William Tong 55 Elm St Hartford CT 06106 Office of the Attorney General Karl A. Racine 441 4th St NW Suite 1100 South Washington DC 20001 Office of the Attorney General Kathy Jennings Carvel State Office Bldg 820 N French St Wilmington DE 19801 Office of the Attorney General Ashley Moody State of Florida The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee FL 32399 Office of the Attorney General Chris Carr 40 Capitol Square SW Atlanta GA 30334 Department of the Attorney General Clare E. Connors 425 Queen St Honolulu HI 96813 Iowa Attorney General Thomas J Miller 1305 E Walnut St Des Moines IA 50319 Office of the Attorney General Lawrence G Wasden 700 W Jefferson St Ste 210 PO Box 83720 Boise ID 83720 Office of the Attorney General Kwame Raoul 100 W Randolph St Chicago IL 60601 Indiana Attorney General's Office Curtis T Hill Jr Indiana Government Center South 302 W Washington St 5th Fl Indianapolis IN 46204 Office of the Attorney General Derek Schmidt 120 SW 10th Ave 2nd Fl Topeka KS 66612 Office of the Attorney General Daniel Cameron 700 Capitol Avenue Suite 118 Frankfort KY 40601 Office of the Attorney General Jeff Landry PO Box 94005 Baton Rouge LA 70804 Office of the Attorney General Maura Healey 1 Ashburton Pl Boston MA 02108 Office of the Attorney General Brian E. Frosh 200 St Paul Pl Baltimore MD 21202 Office of the Attorney General Aaron Frey 6 State House Station Augusta ME 04333 Department of Attorney General Dana Nessel PO Box 30212 Lansing MI 48909 Office of the Attorney General Keith Ellison 445 Minnesota St Suite 1400 St Paul MN 55101 Missouri Attorney General's Office Eric Schmitt 207 West High Street PO Box 899 Jefferson City MO 65102 MS Attorney General's Office Lynn Fitch Walter Sillers Bldg 550 High St Ste 1200 Jackson MS 39201 Office of the Attorney General Tim Fox Department of Justice PO Box 201401 Helena MT 59620 Attorney General's Office Josh Stein 9001 Mail Service Ctr Raleigh NC 27699 Office of the Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem State Capitol 600 E Boulevard Ave Dept 125 Bismarck ND 58505 Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson 2115 State Capitol PO Box 98920 Lincoln NE 68509 Office of the Attorney General Gordon MacDonald NH Department of Justice 33 Capitol St Concord NH 03301 Office of the Attorney General Gurbir S Grewal 25 Market Street P.O. Box 080 Trenton NJ 08625 Office of the Attorney General Hector Balderas 408 Galisteo St Villagra Bldg Santa Fe NM 87501 Office of the Attorney General Aaron Ford 100 N Carson St Carson City NV 89701 Office of the Attorney General Letitia James The Capitol Albany NY 12224 Office of the Attorney General Dave Yost 30 East Broad Street 14th Floor Columbus OH 43215 Office of the Attorney General Mike Hunter 313 NE 21st St Oklahoma City OK 73105 Office of the Attorney General Ellen F Rosenblum Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court St NE Salem OR 97301 Office of the Attorney General Josh Shapiro 16th Fl Strawberry Square Harrisburg PA 17120 Office of the Attorney General Peter F Neronha 150 S Main St Providence RI 02903 Office of the Attorney General Alan Wilson PO Box 11549 Columbia SC 29211 Office of the Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg 1302 E Hwy 14 Ste 1 Pierre SD 57501 Office of the Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery III PO Box 20207 Nashville TN 37202 Office of the Attorney General Ken Paxton 300 W 15th St Austin TX 78701 Office of the Attorney General Sean D. Reyes PO Box 142320 Salt Lake City UT 84114 Office of the Attorney General Mark R. Herring 202 North Ninth Street Richmond VA 23219 Office of the Attorney General TJ Donovan 109 State St Montpelier VT 05609 Office of the Attorney General Bob Ferguson 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle WA 98104 Office of the Attorney General Josh Kaul PO Box 7857 Madison WI 53707 Office of the Attorney General Patrick Morrisey State Capitol Complex Bldg 1 Room E 26 Charleston WV 25305 Office of the Attorney General Bridget Hill 2320 Capitol Avenue Cheyenne WY 82002 Department of Legal Affairs Mitzie Jessop Taase Executive Office Building 3rd Floor PO Box 7 Utulei AS 96799 Attorney General Office of Guam Leevin T Camacho Administration Division 590 S Marine Corps Dr Ste 901 Tamuning GU 96913 Office of the Attorney General Edward Manibusan Administration Bldg PO Box 10007 Saipan MP 96950 PR Department of Justice Dennise N. Longo Quinones PO Box 9020192 San Juan PR 00902 Department of Justice Denise N. George 34-38 Kronprindsens Gade GERS Bldg 2nd Fl St Thomas VI 00802 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 70 of 91 CAFA Notice Service List UPS

Company FullName Address1 Address2 City State Zip US Department of Justice William Barr 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20530 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 71 of 91

Attachment 2 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 72 of 91

NOTICE ADMINISTRATOR HILSOFT NOTIFICATIONS 10300 SW Allen Blvd Beaverton, OR 97005 P 503-350-5800 [email protected] June 26, 2020

VIA UPS OR USPS CERTIFIED MAIL

Class Action Fairness Act – Notice to Federal and State Officials

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to the “Class Action Fairness Act,” (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. §1715, please find enclosed information from Defendant Abacus Data Systems Inc. relating to the proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit.

• Case: Izor v. Abacus Data Systems Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG.

• Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

• Defendants: Abacus Data Systems Inc.

• Judicial Hearing Scheduled: A Preliminary Approval Hearing has been set for July 23, 2020. A Final Approval Hearing has yet to be scheduled by the Court. At the time of the hearing, these matters may be continued without further notice.

• Documents Enclosed: Copies of the following documents are contained on the enclosed CD: 1. Class Action Complaint; 2. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion, Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Incorporated Memorandum of Law; 3. Class Action Settlement Agreement (with Exhibits); ▪ Forms of Notice (As Exhibits A, B, and C to the Settlement Agreement); 4. [Proposed] Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; and 5. Geographic Distribution of Class Members.

Sincerely,

Notice Administrator

Enclosures Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 73 of 91

Attachment 3 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 74 of 91 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 75 of 91 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 76 of 91

Attachment 4 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 77 of 91 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 78 of 91 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 79 of 91 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 80 of 91 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 81 of 91 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 82 of 91 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 83 of 91 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 84 of 91

Attachment 5 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 85 of 91

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

If You Received a Text Sent By or on Behalf of Abacus Data Systems Inc., You May be Entitled to a Payment from a Class Action Settlement.

A federal court authorized this notice. You are not being sued. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

• A Settlement1 has been reached in a class action lawsuit about whether Abacus Data Systems Inc. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”), based on text messages sent by or on behalf of Abacus Data Systems. Abacus Data Systems denies the allegations in the lawsuit and the Court has not decided who is right.

• The Settlement offers payments to Settlement Class Members who file valid Claims.

• Your legal rights are affected whether you act or do not act. Read this notice carefully.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

SUBMIT A If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you must submit a CLAIM FORM completed Claim Form to receive a payment. If the Court approves the Settlement and it becomes final and effective, and you remain in the Settlement Class, you will receive your payment by check.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF You may request to be excluded from the Settlement and if you do, you will receive no benefits from the Settlement.

OBJECT Write to the Court if you do not like the Settlement.

GO TO A HEARING Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement.

DO NOTHING You will not receive a payment if you fail to timely submit a completed Claim Form, and you will give up your right to bring your own lawsuit against Abacus Data Systems about the claims in this case.

• These rights and options—and the deadlines to exercise them—are explained in this notice.

• The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the Settlement. If it does, and after any appeals are resolved, benefits will be distributed to those who submit qualifying Claim Forms. Please be patient.

1 Capitalized terms herein have the same meanings as those defined in the Settlement Agreement, a copy of which may be found online at the Settlement Website, www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com. QUESTIONS? CALL 1-855-917-3577 OR VISIT www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 86 of 91 WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS BASIC INFORMATION...... PAGE 3 1. Why is there a notice? 2. What is this litigation about? 3. What is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act? 4. Why is this a class action? 5. Why is there a settlement?

WHO IS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT...... PAGE 4 6. Who is included in the Settlement? 7. What if I am not sure whether I am included in the Settlement?

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS...... PAGE 4 8. What does the Settlement provide? 9. How do I file a Claim? 10. When will I receive my payment?

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT...... PAGE 5 11. How do I get out of the Settlement? 12. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue Abacus Data Systems for the same thing later? 13. What am I giving up to stay in the Settlement Class? 14. If I exclude myself, can I still get a payment?

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU...... PAGE 5 15. Do I have a lawyer in the case? 16. How will the lawyers be paid?

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT...... PAGE 6 17. How do I tell the Court I do not like the Settlement? 18. What is the difference between objecting and asking to be excluded?

THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING...... PAGE 6 19. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement? 20. Do I have to attend the hearing? 21. May I speak at the hearing?

IF YOU DO NOTHING...... PAGE 7 22. What happens if I do nothing at all?

GETTING MORE INFORMATION...... PAGE 7 23. How do I get more information?

QUESTIONS? CALL 1-855-917-3577 OR VISIT www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com 2 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 87 of 91 BASIC INFORMATION

1. Why is there a notice?

A Court authorized this notice because you have a right to know about a proposed Settlement of a class action lawsuit known as Paul Izor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Abacus Data Systems Inc., N.D. Cal. Case no. 4:19-cv-01057-HSG, and about all of your options before the Court decides whether to give Final Approval to the Settlement. This notice explains the lawsuit, the Settlement, and your legal rights. The United States District Court, Northern District of California is overseeing this case. The person that sued, Paul Izor, is called the “Plaintiff.” Abacus Data Systems Inc. is called the “Defendant.” 2. What is this litigation about?

The lawsuit alleges that Abacus Data Systems violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”), based on unsolicited autodialed texts to individuals, some of whom may have been registered on the national Do Not Call registry. The lawsuit seeks actual and/or statutory damages under the TCPA on behalf of the named Plaintiff and similarly situated classes of individuals in the United States. Abacus Data Systems denies each and every allegation of wrongdoing, liability and damages that was or could have been asserted in the litigation, and that the claims in the litigation would be appropriate for class treatment if the litigation were to proceed through trial. The Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Settlement Agreement, and other case-related documents are posted on the settlement website, www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com. The Settlement resolves the lawsuit. The Court has not decided who is right. 3. What is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act?

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (commonly referred to as the “TCPA”) is a federal law that restricts, among other things, unsolicited autodialed text messages. 4. Why is this a class action? In a class action, one person called the “Class Representative” (in this case, Plaintiff Paul Izor) sues on behalf of himself and other people with similar claims. All of the people who have claims similar to Plaintiff’s are members of the Settlement Class, except for those who exclude themselves from the class. 5. Why is there a settlement?

The Court has not found in favor of Plaintiff or Abacus Data Systems. Instead, the parties have agreed to a Settlement. By agreeing to the Settlement, the parties avoid the costs and uncertainty of a trial, and if the Settlement is approved by the Court, Settlement Class Members will receive the benefits described in this notice. Abacus Data Systems denies all legal claims in this case, but is settling to avoid the uncertainties and costs attendant with litigation. Plaintiff and his lawyers think the proposed Settlement is best for everyone who is affected.

QUESTIONS? CALL 1-855-917-3577 OR VISIT www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com 3 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 88 of 91 WHO IS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT 6. Who is included in the Settlement?

The Settlement Class includes: All regular users or subscribers of numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, paging service, specialized mobile radio service, radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call to which a text message was transmitted by Trumpia on behalf of Abacus Data Systems Inc. between February 26, 2015 and the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (A) the Judges who have presided over the Litigation and their immediate family members; (B) Defendant, Defendant’s officers, Defendant’s directors, and their immediate family members; and (C) the legal representatives of any such excluded person(s). 7. What if I am not sure whether I am included in the Settlement?

If you are not sure whether you are in the Settlement Class, or have any other questions about the Settlement, visit the settlement website at www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com. You also may call or send questions to the Settlement Administrator at 1-855-917-3577 or [email protected].

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS

8. What does the Settlement provide?

Abacus Data Systems has agreed to fund a Settlement Fund totaling $1,950,000. The Settlement Fund will be used to pay all settlement costs, including settlement administration costs, any attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses awarded to Class Counsel by the Court, any service award awarded to the Class Representative by the Court, and all Approved Claims. Members of the Settlement Class who submit Approved Claims shall receive a pro rata share of the Settlement Fund minus a pro rata share of Settlement Costs. Although the exact amount of each claimant’s share of the Settlement Fund is unknown at this time, the parties expect each claimant’s share will be between $400 and $600. Only Approved Claims will be paid. Only one claim per telephone number will be validated and deemed an Approved Claim. 9. How do I file a Claim?

If you qualify for a cash payment you must complete and submit a valid Claim Form. You can file your Claim Form online at www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com, or send it by U.S. Mail to the address below. The deadline to file a Claim online is 11:59 p.m. PST on November 17, 2020. Claim Forms submitted by mail must be postmarked on or before November 17, 2020 to: Abacus Data Systems Settlement Administrator PO Box 3519 Portland, OR 97208-3519 No matter which method you choose to file your Claim Form, please read the Claim Form carefully and provide all the information required. Only one claim per telephone number will be validated and deemed an Approved Claim. 10. When will I receive my payment?

Payments to Settlement Class Members will be made only after the Court grants Final Approval to the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved (see “Final Approval Hearing” below). If there are appeals, resolving them can take time. Please be patient. QUESTIONS? CALL 1-855-917-3577 OR VISIT www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com 4 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 89 of 91 EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT If you do not want benefits from the Settlement, and you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue Abacus Data Systems on your own about the legal issues in this case, then you must take steps to get out of the Settlement. This is called excluding yourself – or it is sometimes referred to as “opting- out” of the Settlement Class. 11. How do I get out of the Settlement?

To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must send a timely letter by mail to: Abacus Data Systems Settlement Administrator PO Box 3519 Portland, OR 97208-3519 Your request to be excluded from the Settlement must be personally signed by you, be dated, include your full name (or, if a business, business name), address, and the telephone number that allegedly received a text or texts sent by or on behalf of Abacus Data Systems, and must clearly state that you wish to be excluded from the Litigation and the Agreement. Absent excluding yourself or “opting- out” you are otherwise a member of the Settlement Class. Your exclusion request must be postmarked no later than November 17, 2020. You cannot ask to be excluded on the phone, by email, or at the website. Opt outs must be made individually and cannot be made on behalf of other members of the Settlement Class. 12. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue Abacus Data Systems for the same thing later?

No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue Abacus Data Systems or any of the Released Parties for the claims that the Settlement resolves. You must exclude yourself from this Settlement to pursue your own lawsuit. 13. What am I giving up to stay in the Settlement Class?

Unless you opt-out of the Settlement, you cannot sue or be part of any other lawsuit against Abacus Data Systems or any of the Released Parties about the issues in this case, including any existing litigation, arbitration, or proceeding. Unless you exclude yourself, all of the decisions and judgments by the Court will bind you. The Settlement Agreement is available at www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com. The Settlement Agreement provides more detail regarding the Release and describes the Released Claims with specific descriptions in necessary, accurate legal terminology, so read it carefully. You can talk to the law firm representing the Class (Class Counsel) listed in Question 15 for free, or you can, at your own expense, talk to your own lawyer if you have any questions about the Released Claims or what they mean. 14. If I exclude myself, can I still get a payment?

No. You will not get a payment from the Settlement Fund if you exclude yourself from the Settlement.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

15. Do I have a lawyer in the case?

The Court has appointed Avi R. Kaufman and Rachel E. Kaufman of Kaufman P.A. (located at 400 NW 26th Street, Miami, FL 33127; telephone number 305-469-5881) and Stefan Coleman of Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A. (located at 11 Broadway Suite 615, New York, NY 10004; telephone

QUESTIONS? CALL 1-855-917-3577 OR VISIT www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com 5 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 90 of 91 number 877-333-9427) as “Class Counsel” to represent all members of the Settlement Class. You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by another lawyer, you may hire one to appear in Court for you at your own expense. 16. How will the lawyers be paid?

Class Counsel intend to request attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the litigation not to exceed $25,000. The fees and expenses awarded by the Court will be paid out of the Settlement Fund. The Court will decide the amount of fees and expenses to award. Class Counsel also will request that a service award not to exceed $5,000 be paid from the Settlement Fund to the Class Representative for his service as representative on behalf of the whole Settlement Class. The deadline to file the request for attorneys’ fees and expenses and the request for a service award to the Class Representative is October 13, 2020. Once filed, these requests will be available for viewing on the Settlement Website.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT

17. How do I tell the Court I do not like the Settlement? If you are a member of the Settlement Class (and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class), you can object to any part of the Settlement, the request for attorneys’ fees and expenses, or the request for a service award to the Class Representative. To object, you must timely submit a letter that includes the following: 1) A caption or title that identifies it as “Objection to Class Settlement in Izor v. Abacus Data Systems Inc., 4:19-cv-01057-HSG”; 2) Your name, address, and telephone number; 3) The name, address, and telephone number of any attorney for you with respect to the objection; 4) The factual basis and legal grounds for the objection, including any documents sufficient to establish the basis for your standing as a Settlement Class Member, including the phone number(s) at which you received text(s) covered by this Settlement; and 5) Identification of the case name, case number, and court for any prior class action lawsuit in which the you and/or your attorney (if applicable) has objected to a proposed class action settlement. If you wish to object, you must file your objection with the Court by (a) using the Court’s electronic filing system, (b) mailing it to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building& United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Suite 400 S, Oakland, CA 94612, or (c) filing it in person at that location. Your objection must be filed and/or postmarked by November 17, 2020. 18. What is the difference between objecting and asking to be excluded? Objecting is telling the Court that you do not like something about the Settlement. You can object to the Settlement only if you do not exclude yourself. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to be part of the Settlement. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object to the Settlement because it no longer affects you.

THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement and any requests for attorneys’ fees and expenses and a service award (“Final Approval Hearing”).

QUESTIONS? CALL 1-855-917-3577 OR VISIT www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com 6 Case 4:19-cv-01057-HSG Document 79-4 Filed 12/01/20 Page 91 of 91 19. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement?

The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing on December 17, 2020 at 2:00p.m., in Courtroom 2 – 4th Floor of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Courthouse, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612. The hearing may be moved to a different date, time, or location without additional mailed notice, so it is a good idea to check www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com for updates. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider the requests by Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses and for a service award to the Class Representative. If there are objections, the Court will consider them at that time. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement. It is unknown how long these decisions will take. 20. Do I have to attend the hearing?

No. Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. You are welcome to attend the hearing at your own expense. 21. May I speak at the hearing? If you attend the Final Approval Hearing, you may ask the Court for permission to speak if you so choose. However, you cannot speak at the hearing if you exclude yourself from the Settlement.

IF YOU DO NOTHING

22. What happens if I do nothing at all? If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do nothing, meaning you do not file a timely Claim, you will not get benefits from the Settlement. Further, unless you exclude yourself, you will be bound by the judgment entered by the Court.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION

23. How do I get more information? This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. You are urged to review more details in the Settlement Agreement. For a complete, definitive statement of the Settlement terms, refer to the Settlement Agreement at www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com, by contacting class counsel Kaufman P.A. at (305) 469-5881, by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. You also may call or write with questions to the Settlement Administrator at 1-855-917-3577, Abacus Data Systems Settlement Administrator, PO Box 3519, Portland, OR 97208-3519, or at [email protected]. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.

QUESTIONS? CALL 1-855-917-3577 OR VISIT www.ADSTCPAsettlement.com 7