In re J&J Investment Litigation

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided July 9, 2026·No. 2:22-cv-00529·Unknown

Opinion

1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 In re J&J Investment Litigation Case No. 2:22-cv-00529-CDS-NJK

5 Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and 6 Providing for Notice

7 [ECF No. 286] 8 9 10 The parties having made application, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), 11 for an order preliminarily approving settlement of this Class Action, in accordance with the 12 Settlement Agreement and Release dated April 21, 2026 (the “Agreement”), which, together with 13 the exhibits annexed thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of 14 the Class Action and for dismissal of the Class Action with prejudice upon the terms and 15 conditions set forth therein.1 ECF No. 286. The court held a hearing on the motion on July 8, 16 2026. Following that hearing, and after considering Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval 17 and supporting brief requesting that this court: (1) conditionally certify the Settlement Class; 18 (2) preliminarily approve the parties’ proposed class action settlement; (3) appoint Barrett 19 Henzel, Allan Carso, Rodney Michaelis, Joshua Luekenga, Gary Lundin, Bryce Kelly, and Clint 20 and Dan McDaniel as Class Representatives, their counsel as Class Counsel, and Stretto, Inc. as 21 the Settlement Administrator; (4) set the deadlines for written exclusion or objections to the 22 Agreement; (5) approve the form of Class Notice to the Settlement Class and the claim form; and 23 (6) schedule a hearing on the final approval of the Agreement for November 12, 2026; 24

26 1 All defined terms herein have the same meanings as set forth in the Agreement. 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. Nature of the Action. Plaintiffs Barrett Henzel, Allan Carso, Craig Rodney 3 Michaelis, Joshua Luekenga, Gary Lundin, Bryce Kelly, and Clint and Dan McDaniel 4 (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo” or “Defendant”): 5 (1) violated the Nevada Uniform Fiduciaries Act; (2) aided and abetted breach of fiduciary duty; 6 (3) aided and abetted fraud; and (4) were negligent arising out of and relating to an alleged 7 Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Jeffrey Judd and Matthew Beasley. Defendants dispute and deny 8 all of Plaintiffs’ claims. 9 2. Settlement. Plaintiffs Barrett Henzel, Allan Carso, Craig Rodney Michaelis, 10 Joshua Luekenga, Gary Lundin, Bryce Kelly, and Clint and Dan McDaniel (the “Class 11 Representatives”), individually and as Class Representative on behalf of the Class, and 12 Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (collectively, the “Parties”) have negotiated a potential 13 settlement of the Class Action to avoid the expense, uncertainties, and burden of protracted 14 litigation, and to resolve the Released Claims (as defined in the Agreement) against Defendant 15 and the Releasees. 16 3. Review. At the preliminary approval stage, the court’s task is to evaluate 17 settlement under Rule 23(e)(1). The court may preliminarily approve the settlement only if it 18 concludes that it will “likely” be able to (a) certify the class for purposes of judgment and (b) 19 approve the parties’ settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Whether a settlement merits 20 approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate is guided by the elements in Rule 23(e)(2). 21 Supplementing those Rule 23(e) elements are the “Churchill factors.” See generally Churchill Vill., 22 L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Daniels v. Aria Resort & Casino, LLC, 2023 23 WL 2634613, at *2–3 (D. Nev. Mar. 23, 2023) (applying both Rule 23 and Churchill factors); Kim v. 24 Allison, 8 F.4th 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2021). Settlements that occur before formal class certification 25 “require a higher standard of fairness.” In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 26 2000). In reviewing such settlements, a court also must ensure that “the settlement is not the 1 product of collusion among the negotiating parties.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 2 F.3d 935, 946–47 (9th Cir. 2011). 3 The court has carefully reviewed the Agreement pursuant Rule 23(e)(1), including the 4 notice plan, the plan of allocation and the release of claims, as well as the files, records, and 5 proceedings to date in the Class Action. The terms and conditions in the Agreement are hereby 6 incorporated as though fully set forth in this Order, and, unless otherwise indicated, capitalized 7 items in this Order will have the meanings attributed to them in the Agreement. 8 4. Jurisdiction. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Class 9 Action and over all parties to the Class Action, including all of the Class Members, and venue in 10 this court is proper. 11 5. Preliminary Settlement Approval. Based on the review the court has conducted, 12 as set forth in paragraph 3, the court does hereby preliminarily approve the Agreement and the 13 Settlement set forth therein as fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to further consideration at 14 the Final Approval Hearing described below. The court finds on a preliminary basis that the 15 Settlement as set forth in the Agreement falls within the range of reasonableness and was the 16 product of informed, good-faith, arms’-length negotiations between the Parties and their 17 counsel, and therefore meets the requirements for preliminary approval. The court finds and 18 concludes that the amount of the settlement, the stage of the proceedings at which the 19 Agreement was reached, the deliberate nature of settlement negotiations, the assistance of 20 experienced mediator Robert Meyer, Esq., in the settlement process, and the overall record in 21 this action, all support the finding that the Settlement is non-collusive. 22 6. Certification of Settlement Class. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 23, the court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only (and for no purposes and with 24 no other effect upon the Class Action, including no effect upon the Class Action should the 25 Agreement not receive Final Approval or should the Effective Date not occur), a class defined as 26 all natural and legal persons who invested in a J&J Entity lawsuit settlement contract between 1 January 2017 and March 2022 and who incurred a loss of their principle investment (in whole or 2 in part) as determined by the Receiver pursuant to his court-appointed duties and as identified 3 in the Receiver’s official records submitted to the court in the SEC Action. Excluded from the 4 class are Wells Fargo and the Relevant Non-Parties as defined in the Class Action Complaint; 5 their parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, legal representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, and 6 employees; and any judge to whom the Class Action or Receiver Action is assigned, his or her 7 spouse, and all persons within the third degree of relationship to either of them, as well as the 8 spouses of such persons. 9 The court finds, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 10 that it will likely be able to certify the Class for purposes of the proposed Settlement.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re J&J Investment Litigation, (D. Nev. 2026).

In re J&J Investment Litigation (In re J&J Investment Litigation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related