Letter from Randal Krueger. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2022) — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 171)

Summary

A request by class member Randal Krueger to speak at the final approval of the class action settlement in Cottle et al. v. Plaid Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division, Document 171, filed May 3, 2022. Randal Krueger, appearing in pro personam, objects to the Final Judgment Granting Approval of Class Action Settlement. The filing states that the objecting party was not properly notified of the class action until looking in a junk email and seeing that a claim was due on April 28, 2022. It also objects to class counsel's request for reimbursement of litigation expenses and attorney costs, and states that the objecting party's damages exceed the settlement. A certificate of service follows.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

RY

Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document171 Filed 05/03/22 Page1of4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MAY 03 2022 pe
OAKLAND DIVISION CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Cottle et al. v. Plaid Inc en

Plaintiffs, Case No. : 4:20-cv-03056-DMR

Honorable Hon. Donna M. Ryu
v.

Plaid Inc.

Defendants.

REQUEST OF CLASS MEMBER TO SPEAK AT FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT

NOW COMES, RANDAL KRUEGER in pro personam and Objects to the Final
Judgment Granting Approval of Class Action Settlement based on the following:

1. Randal Krueger, hereinafter "Objecting Party", is an interested party in the Class
Action because he has suffered consequential damages through the use of Plaid.

2. Objecting Party moves the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(bX6), for relief from
the Final Judgment Order.

3. Objecting Party used Plaid services. a | Oo

4. Objecting Party was not properly notified of the Class Action until Claimant looked his
his junk email and seen a claim was due on April 28, 2022 on April 28, 2022
and cannot be held to the terms of the class order.

5. Objecting Party received no other notice of this Class Claim.

6. Object party objects to Class Counsel’s request for reimbursement of reasonable

litigation expenses, attorney costs and the Objecting Party has filed a timely objection to the
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document171 Filed 05/03/22 Page 2of4

Final Judgment. The motive behind the Objection is that Objecting Party's damages exceed the
current class settlement would only pay slight damages and the majority go to a Class

Administer who allegedly did not send proper notice to Claimant.

WHEREFORE Objecting Party does hereby objects to the proposed Class Settlement and
wishes to speak against the fees charged is this case for both legal expenses and Class
Administer .

Objecting Party (Randal Krueger)

April 29", 2022
/s/ Randal Krueger
1098 Ann Arbor Rd W #114
Plymouth, MI 48170
contact@randalkrueger.com

734 249 8131

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Randal C. Krueger hereby certify that on April 29", 2022, I electronically filed this request with
all class counsel on record and with the Clerk of the Court using the USPS FIRST CLASS MAIL
of such filing was sent to all counsel of record via electronic means only and via US Mail upon:
To: -

Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu

Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 4 — 3rd Floor

1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612

Donna M.
J onn
- land neering
Could fewn 4 Ft Flow

130 Clas
oe Oalctand te; A 4619

Sips BE i agai pulled Life fis A ifjje ell] dauidedjifije: if Defyihiy

io

Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 171 eS, Page 3 of 4
|
: }
I
1

Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 171 Filed 05/03/22 Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.171.0.pdf

Size

599,447 bytes

SHA-256

3ff8faf2e3a7021af9892ff3fd3af55e006dc57f37ef7ff244e1b88ef813aab0

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.171.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)