Owens v. MGM Resorts International

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided June 18, 2025·No. 2:23-cv-01480·Unknown

Opinion

UNITEDDI SSTTRAITCETS ODFIS NTERVICATD AC OURT

IN RE MGM INTERNATIONAL RESORTS Case No.: 2:20-cv-00376-GMN DATA BREACH LITIGAITON

This Document Relates To: All actions.

UNITED STATES DI STRICT COURT

TANYA OWENS, et al. Master File No. 2:23-cv-01480-GMN (Consolidated for pretrial proceedings with Plaintiffs, Case Nos. 2:23-cv-1481, 2:23-cv1537, 2:23-cv-1549, 2:23-cv-1550, 2:23-cv1577, v. 2:23-cv-1698, 2:23- cv-1719, 2:23-cv1777, 2:23-cv-1826, 2:23-cv- 1981, 2:23-cv2042, MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL 2:23-cv-2064, 2:24-cv-81, 2:24-cv-00995, 2:24-cv-00999) Defendant.

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS AND FINAL JUDGMENT On January 17, 2025, after extensive arms-length negotiations, and private mediation conducted before Bruce Friedman, Esq., with JAMS in Las Vegas, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into the Settlement Agreement, which is subject to review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, for monetary damages as set forth in the Agreement. On January 17, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed the Agreement with the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Memorandum of Law. (Case No. 2:20-cv- 00376-GMN, ECF No. 243; Case No. 2:23-cv-01480-GMN, ECF No. 62.) On January 22, 2025, upon consideration of the Agreement, Motion for Preliminary Approval, and the record, the Court entered the Preliminary Approval Order. (Case No. 2:20-cv-00376-GMN, ECF No. 244; Case No. 2:23-cv-01480-GMN, ECF No. 63.) Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court, among other things, (i) provisionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement McNamara, E. Michelle Drake, David Berger, J. Gerard Stranch IV, Lynn Toops, James Pizzirusso, Gary Klinger, and Jeff Ostrow as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iv) approved the form of the Notices and the Notice Program; (v) approved the Claim Form and the Claim process; (vi) appointed Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator; (vii) established procedures and deadlines for members of the Settlement Class to opt-out of or object to the Settlement; and (viii) scheduled the Final Approval Hearing at which time the Court would consider whether to grant Final Approval of the Settlement and the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Service Awards. Id. On April, 1, 2025, the Parties filed their Joint Motion to Approve Amendment to Settlement Agreement and Modify Notice Program (Case No. 2:20-cv-00376-GMN, ECF No. 250; Case No. 2:23-cv-01480-GMN, ECF No. 72), which the Court granted (Case No. 2:20-cv-00376-GMN, ECF No. 251; Case No. 2:23-cv-01480-GMN, ECF No. 73). On May 2, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Application for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. (Case No. 2:20-cv-00376-GMN, ECF No. 257; Case No. 2:23-cv-01480-GMN, ECF No. 77.) Pursuant to the Motion for Final Approval, the Parties request Final Approval of the proposed class action Settlement, and awards of attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel and Service Awards to the Class Representatives. Id. On June 18, 2025, a Final Approval Hearing was held on the Motion for Final Approval and Application for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. Class Counsel appeared for the Plaintiffs and Settlement Class, and Defendant’s Counsel appeared for Defendant. Having received and considered the Settlement, the supporting papers filed by the Parties, and the evidence and argument received by the Court before entering the Preliminary Approval Order and at the Final Approval Hearing, the Court grants Final Approval of the Settlement and the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards, enters this order, and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. INCORPORATION OF DEFINED TERMS: This order incorporates the definitions of all capitalized terms defined in Section II of the Settlement Agreement, and all capitalized terms used in this order have the same meanings as set forth in that Agreement. 2. JURISDICTION: The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Action and personal jurisdiction over the Parties and Settlement Class Members. 3. NOTICE PROGRAM AND CLAIMS PROCESS: Pursuant to the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator has complied with the approved Notice Program as confirmed in its declaration filed with the Court. The form and method for notifying the Settlement Class of the Settlement and its terms and conditions was in conformity with this Court’s Preliminary Approval Order and satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) and due process, and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Court finds that the Notice Program was clearly designed to advise the Settlement Class members of their rights. Further, the Court finds that the Claim Process set forth in the Agreement was followed and that the process was the best practicable procedure under the circumstances. 4. FINAL CLASS CERTIFICATION: The Court again finds the Actions satisfy the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, namely: a. The Settlement Class members are so numerous that joinder of all of them in the Lawsuit would be impracticable; b. There are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class members, which predominate over any individual questions; c. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class members; d. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of all the Settlement Class members; and e. Class treatment of these claims will be efficient and manageable, thereby achieving an appreciable measure of judicial economy, and a class action is superior to other available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication. 5. CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS: The Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class: All persons in the United States whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Incidents. Excluded from the Settlement Class are the judges presiding over the Actions and members of their direct families. 6. APPOINTMENTS: Consistent with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court hereby appoints the following as Class Representatives, Class Counsel, and Settlement Administrator: a. The appointment of Plaintiffs as Class Representatives is affirmed; b. The appointment of Plaintiffs’ counsel, John Yanchunis, Doug McNamara, E. Michelle Drake, David Berger, J. Gerard Stranch IV, Lynn Toops, James Pizzirusso, Gary Klinger, and Jeff Ostrow, as Class Counsel is affirmed; and c. The appointment of Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. as Settlement Administrator is affirmed. 7. SETTLEMENT TERMS REASONABLE: The Court finds that the Settlement of the Actions, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class, applying the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) factors and Ninth Circuit’s traditional Churchill factors. 8. FINAL APPROVAL: The Agreement, which has been filed with the Court and shall be deemed incorporated herein, and the proposed Settlement is finally approved and shall be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions thereof, except as amended by any order issued by this Court. 9. OPT-OUTS: A list of the individuals who have opted-out of the Settlement is attached as Exhibit A. Those individuals will not be bound by the Agreement or the Releases contained therein. 10. OBJECTIONS:

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

Owens v. MGM Resorts International, (D. Nev. 2025).

Owens v. MGM Resorts International (Owens v. MGM Resorts International) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Theodore H. Frank v. Netflix, Inc.
779 F.3d 934 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)