IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

ORDER RE: MOTION No. 15-MD-2670 DMS (MSB)
1
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD
PRODUCTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 15-MD-2670 DMS (MSB)
ORDER DENYING MOTION
REQUESTING SETTLEMENT
ADMINISTRATOR RESCIND ITS
REQUIREMENT REGARDING
SENDING GOVERNMENT
ISSUED IDS IN MAIL
This Document Relates to:
End Payer Plaintiffs Class
Case 3:15-md-02670-DMS-MSB Document 3428 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

-1-
EPPS’ SUBMISSION RE OBJECTION No. 15-MD-2670 DMS (MSB)
1
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
This case comes before the Court on a motion filed by Anthony Aguilar, a
member of the End Payer Plaintiff (“EPP”) Class. In the motion, Mr. Aguilar requests
that the Court order the Claims Administrator JND Legal Administration (“JND”) to
“rescind all notices sent to class members that included a demand they send their
Government issued ID via postal mail or their claim will be denied.” (Mot. at 3.) He
also requests that the Court order JND to “file a Post Distribution Accounting Form
attached with the total number of class members who were sent the notice, received
the notice (attached) and how many class members responded to that notice.” (Id.)
The EPPs filed an opposition to the motion, and Mr. Aguilar filed a reply. For the
reasons set out below, the motion is denied.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2025, JND emailed a claim deficiency notice to Mr. Aguilar.
Dkt. No. 3423, Ex. A. (“Deficiency Notice.”) The Deficiency Notice requested proof
supporting the 90,600 cans of Packaged Tuna that Mr. Aguilar claimed to have
purchased during the 49-month Class Period, and proof that the Packaged Tuna was
purchased for end consumption and not for resale. Id. Mr. Aguilar’s claim amounts to
the use of an average of 1,849 cans or pouches of Packaged Seafood per month during
the Class Period. This Deficiency Notice also requested a copy of Mr. Aguilar’s valid
government-issued identification (“ID”) (not the physical ID itself) to be sent via U.S.
Mail to verify his identify. See Dkt. No. 3423, Ex. A.
On November 5, 2025, Class Counsel received a copy Mr. Aguilar’s Motion
by email and discussed his concerns with JND. Manifold Decl. ¶ 8. After discussion
with Class Counsel, JND agreed to offer Mr. Aguilar (and other potential claimants
with a Deficiency Notice) another well-accepted alternative identity verification
procedure known as a notarized verification of identity.
On Friday, November 7, 2025, JND e-mailed Mr. Aguilar to acknowledge
receipt of his Motion. JND corrected any misunderstanding that only a copy of a
government issued ID was required, and to provide the alternative method of
Case 3:15-md-02670-DMS-MSB Document 3428 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

- 2 -
EPPS’ OPPOSITION RE: MOTION No. 15-MD-2670 DMS (MSB)
1
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
verification in the form of a notarized verification of identify. See Manifold Decl. ¶
9, Ex. 2. As of November 24, 2025, neither Class Counsel nor JND had received a
response to that email from Mr. Aguilar.
II. THE COURT APPROVED AND APPOINTED JND TO BE THE
CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE EPP SETTLEMENT(S)
The Court appointed JND, an experienced and well-respected claims
administrator, to disseminate Class Notice on two separate occasions and to process
claims for distribution of the Settlement Fund in this multi-district litigation to
authorized claimants. See Dkt. No. 3327 (Final Approval Order) at 6. Dkt. Nos. 2734
and 2781 (COSI Final Approve Order). As the Court recognized, JND’s experience
in this case has promoted efficiency. See Dkt. No. 2552-6. JND is a nationally
recognized claims administration firm that has successfully handled claims
processing for complex class actions, including settlements requiring extensive media
campaigns to large consumer classes. See Dkt. No. 2552-6 (reciting JND’s class
action claims administration experience).
In its Final Approval Order, this Court reviewed and approved JND’s system
for running fraud analysis on the claims received, prior to ultimately dispersing the
Settlement Funds. See Dkt. No. 3327 at 10. Among other things, the Final Approval
Order directed JND to:
• “review, determine the validity of, process and hold on to all Claim
Forms submitted by claimants.”
• “flag any issues (such as failure to sign a paper or pdf Claim Form)
and follow up with the claimant, as necessary.”
• “review the Claim Forms to ensure submission by a single claim
per claimant. (avoiding doctored documentation and multiple
payments to a single recipient).”
Id. at 9.
Case 3:15-md-02670-DMS-MSB Document 3428 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

- 3 -
EPPS’ OPPOSITION RE: MOTION No. 15-MD-2670 DMS (MSB)
1
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
Claim Administrators seeking identity confirmation from suspect or high-
volume claimants is sometimes necessary for a claim or claimant. For example, a
court in the Northern District of California approved the requirement of asking
claimants to provide government issued identification. See Opperman v. Kong Techs.,
Inc. (“Opperman”), No. 3:13-cv-00453-JST (N.D. Cal.); Opperman, Dkt. No. 911;
Opperman, Dkt. No. 918, (attached as Exhibit 3 to the Manifold Declaration).
Verification serves the purpose of minimizing the risk of fraudulent claims in class
action settlements.
Here, as part of JND’s routine claims administration and fraud analysis, JND
reviewed three separate large volume claims submitted by Mr. Aguilar. JND sent a
notice to Mr. Aguilar requesting that he verify his identity with a copy of a valid
government-issued ID submitted directly to JND by U.S. Mail. JND also requested
that Mr. Aguilar provide verification or proof of purchase for the amount of packaged
seafood claimed and to verify that the purchases were for end use consumption.
As claims administrator, JND’s duties include flagging claim issues, following
up on incomplete or suspicious claims, and running an appropriate fraud analysis. As
part of JND’s critical fraud analysis, potential class claimants with substantial claims
may be required to provide follow up information to verify their claims. This is a
reasonable and necessary step in JND’s fraud analysis. The alternative verification
processes offered by JND to Mr. Aguilar further address all the privacy concerns
raised in his Motion. The alternative verification process allows Mr. Aguilar to go to
any notary of his choice to verify his identity in response to the Deficiency Notice.
Any other potential claimants with similar concerns will be offered the same
alternative by JND. Therefore, and for the reasons set out above, Mr. Aguilar’s request
to rescind this request as to his Deficiency Notice is DENIED.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:15-md-02670-DMS-MSB Document 3428 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

- 4 -
EPPS’ OPPOSITION RE: MOTION No. 15-MD-2670 DMS (MSB)
1
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
III. RELIEF REQUESTED BY MOVANT CREATES A POTENTIAL
FRAUD RISK
The Movant also requests that JND “rescind all [Deficiency Notices] to class
members that included a demand they send Government issue ID via postal mail, or
their claim will be denied.” Dkt. No. 3423 at 3. This request raises serious fraud
concerns. Rescinding a reasonable and necessary fraud detection process would not
only be detrimental to JND’s administration methodologies but could also exacerbate
any potential for fraud in this settlement and in future settlements. Mr. Aguilar’s
proposal to publish the information of other potential claimants who were served with
a Deficiency Notice in a published accounting will also impede JND’s fraud analysis
and could reveal the methodologies used by claim administrators to deter fraud.
Finally, the Court finds, based on the evidence and briefing submitted, that the
“Claim Forms” and the correspondence related to the Claims are retained by JND for
auditing purposes only and are not publicly available unless disclosure is properly
ordered by this or any other Court, and that no submitted claim is part of the “public
domain” unless, it is disclosed by the claimant himself (as is the case here.)
Therefore, for the reasons stated herein, the relief requested by Mr. Aguilar in
his Motion is DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2026
Case 3:15-md-02670-DMS-MSB Document 3428 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5