Owens v. MGM Resorts International

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJune 18, 2025
Docket2:23-cv-01480
StatusUnknown

This text of Owens v. MGM Resorts International (Owens v. MGM Resorts International) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

Opinion

2 UNITEDDI SSTTRAITCETS ODFIS NTERVICATD AC OURT

3 IN RE MGM INTERNATIONAL RESORTS Case No.: 2:20-cv-00376-GMN DATA BREACH LITIGAITON 4

This Document Relates To: All actions. 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DI STRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9 TANYA OWENS, et al. Master File No. 2:23-cv-01480-GMN (Consolidated for pretrial proceedings with 10 Plaintiffs, Case Nos. 2:23-cv-1481, 2:23-cv1537, 2:23-cv-1549, 2:23-cv-1550, 2:23-cv1577, 11 v. 2:23-cv-1698, 2:23- cv-1719, 2:23-cv1777, 2:23-cv-1826, 2:23-cv- 1981, 2:23-cv2042, 12 MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL 2:23-cv-2064, 2:24-cv-81, 2:24-cv-00995, 2:24-cv-00999) 13 Defendant. 14

15 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR 16 ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS AND FINAL JUDGMENT 17 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 18 into the Settlement Agreement, which is subject to review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, for monetary 19 damages as set forth in the Agreement. 20 On January 17, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed the Agreement with the Unopposed Motion for 21 Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Memorandum of Law. (Case No. 2:20-cv- 22 00376-GMN, ECF No. 243; Case No. 2:23-cv-01480-GMN, ECF No. 62.) 23 On January 22, 2025, upon consideration of the Agreement, Motion for Preliminary Approval, 24 and the record, the Court entered the Preliminary Approval Order. (Case No. 2:20-cv-00376-GMN, 25 ECF No. 244; Case No. 2:23-cv-01480-GMN, ECF No. 63.) Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval 26 Order, the Court, among other things, (i) provisionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement 1 McNamara, E. Michelle Drake, David Berger, J. Gerard Stranch IV, Lynn Toops, James Pizzirusso, 2 Gary Klinger, and Jeff Ostrow as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iv) approved the form of 3 the Notices and the Notice Program; (v) approved the Claim Form and the Claim process; (vi) 4 appointed Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator; (vii) 5 established procedures and deadlines for members of the Settlement Class to opt-out of or object to 6 the Settlement; and (viii) scheduled the Final Approval Hearing at which time the Court would 7 consider whether to grant Final Approval of the Settlement and the Application for Attorneys’ Fees, 8 Costs and Service Awards. Id. 9 On April, 1, 2025, the Parties filed their Joint Motion to Approve Amendment to Settlement 10 Agreement and Modify Notice Program (Case No. 2:20-cv-00376-GMN, ECF No. 250; Case No. 11 2:23-cv-01480-GMN, ECF No. 72), which the Court granted (Case No. 2:20-cv-00376-GMN, ECF 12 No. 251; Case No. 2:23-cv-01480-GMN, ECF No. 73). 13 On May 2, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 14 and Application for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. (Case No. 2:20-cv-00376-GMN, 15 ECF No. 257; Case No. 2:23-cv-01480-GMN, ECF No. 77.) Pursuant to the Motion for Final 16 Approval, the Parties request Final Approval of the proposed class action Settlement, and awards of 17 attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel and Service Awards to the Class Representatives. Id. 18 On June 18, 2025, a Final Approval Hearing was held on the Motion for Final Approval and 19 Application for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. Class Counsel appeared for the Plaintiffs 20 and Settlement Class, and Defendant’s Counsel appeared for Defendant. 21 Having received and considered the Settlement, the supporting papers filed by the Parties, and 22 the evidence and argument received by the Court before entering the Preliminary Approval Order and 23 at the Final Approval Hearing, the Court grants Final Approval of the Settlement and the Application 24 for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards, enters this order, and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 25 1. INCORPORATION OF DEFINED TERMS: This order incorporates the definitions 26 of all capitalized terms defined in Section II of the Settlement Agreement, and all capitalized terms 27 used in this order have the same meanings as set forth in that Agreement. 28 2. JURISDICTION: The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Action and 1 personal jurisdiction over the Parties and Settlement Class Members. 2 3. NOTICE PROGRAM AND CLAIMS PROCESS: Pursuant to the Court’s 3 Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator has complied with the approved Notice 4 Program as confirmed in its declaration filed with the Court. The form and method for notifying the 5 Settlement Class of the Settlement and its terms and conditions was in conformity with this Court’s 6 Preliminary Approval Order and satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) and due 7 process, and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Court finds that the 8 Notice Program was clearly designed to advise the Settlement Class members of their rights. Further, 9 the Court finds that the Claim Process set forth in the Agreement was followed and that the process 10 was the best practicable procedure under the circumstances. 11 4. FINAL CLASS CERTIFICATION: The Court again finds the Actions satisfy the 12 applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, namely: 13 a. The Settlement Class members are so numerous that joinder of all of them in the Lawsuit 14 would be impracticable; 15 b. There are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class members, which 16 predominate over any individual questions; 17 c. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class members; 18 d. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected the 19 interests of all the Settlement Class members; and 20 e. Class treatment of these claims will be efficient and manageable, thereby achieving an 21 appreciable measure of judicial economy, and a class action is superior to other available methods for 22 a fair and efficient adjudication. 23 5. CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS: The Court finally certifies the 24 following Settlement Class: 25 All persons in the United States whose Private Information was accessed during the 26 Data Incidents. 27 Excluded from the Settlement Class are the judges presiding over the Actions and members of their 28 direct families. 1 6. APPOINTMENTS: Consistent with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court hereby 2 appoints the following as Class Representatives, Class Counsel, and Settlement Administrator: 3 a. The appointment of Plaintiffs as Class Representatives is affirmed; 4 b. The appointment of Plaintiffs’ counsel, John Yanchunis, Doug McNamara, E. Michelle 5 Drake, David Berger, J. Gerard Stranch IV, Lynn Toops, James Pizzirusso, Gary Klinger, and Jeff 6 Ostrow, as Class Counsel is affirmed; and 7 c. The appointment of Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. as Settlement 8 Administrator is affirmed. 9 7. SETTLEMENT TERMS REASONABLE: The Court finds that the Settlement of the 10 Actions, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, is in all respects fundamentally fair, 11 reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class, applying the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 23(e)(2) factors and Ninth Circuit’s traditional Churchill factors. 13 8.

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Owens v. MGM Resorts International, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-mgm-resorts-international-nvd-2025.