Frouws et al v. Edgio Incorporated et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Peter Frouws, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Edgio Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-23-00691-PHX-DJH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
On August 14, 2026, Lead Plaintiff Peter Frouws (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. 88). Defendants Robert A. Lyons, David
R. Boncel, and Stephen Cummings (collectively, “Defendants”) did not file a response. A
final fairness hearing was held before the Court on September 14, 2026. For the reasons
stated below, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion and enter judgment accordingly.1
I. Background
Plaintiff has brought this action against Defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of himself and other class members, who
acquired Edgio’s common stock. (Doc. 32 at 1). Plaintiff has alleged that, during the Class
Period, Edgio and Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
omissions, such as overstating the success of Edgio’s projects and artificially inflating
Edgio’s revenue. (Id. at ¶¶ 4–7). When the truth surrounding Edgio’s performance came
to light, Plaintiff alleges that Edgio’s stock price was steadily driven down. (Id. at ¶ 8).
1 Unless otherwise specified, defined terms carry the same meaning as stated in the Court’s
Order preliminarily approving the Settlement.
Case 2:23-cv-00691-DJH Document 94 Filed 09/15/26 Page 1 of 13

- 2 -
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
Therefore, Plaintiff filed the present action to recoup his losses as well as those of other
investors.
During the pendency of this case, Defendant Edgio filed for bankruptcy and was
subsequently terminated as a Defendant on March 17, 2025. (Doc. 49). Nonetheless, the
remaining Defendants then sought dismissal of the action based on a failure to state a claim,
but the Court denied Defendants’ motion. (See Doc. 58). Prior to the Court’s denial, the
parties retained a highly experienced mediator with decades of experience handling
securities class actions. (Doc. 80-1 at 10). The first mediation session proved
unsuccessful, and discovery in this case ensued. But the parties were ultimately able to
reach a settlement with the assistance of the mediator. (Id. at 11).
After this settlement was reached, Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. 80). Plaintiff provided the parties’
settlement agreement and proposed notice protocol to the Court. (See Doc. 80-3). The
Court detailed the relevant portions of the Settlement Agreement in its earlier Order and
incorporates that description here. (Doc. 81 at 2–3). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s
submission, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Agreement and preliminarily
certified the Class, and the Court further incorporates all relevant portions of the
Preliminary Approval Order here. (See generally id.).
Presently, Plaintiff has completed the notice process, informing class members of
the Settlement Agreement. No objection by any Settlement Class Member was filed in this
case, nor has the Court received any request to be excluded from the Settle Agreement by
a Settlement Class Member. And on September 14, 2026, the Court held a Final Fairness
Hearing that was attended by Class Counsel and Defendants’ counsel. Plaintiff now moves
for final approval of the Agreement. (Doc. 88).
II. Legal Standard
A strong judicial policy supports the settlement of class actions. Class Plaintiffs v.
City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). Even still, “[t]o guard against th[e]
potential for class action abuse, Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
Case 2:23-cv-00691-DJH Document 94 Filed 09/15/26 Page 2 of 13

- 3 -
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
court approval of all class action settlements, which may be granted only after a fairness
hearing and a determination that the settlement taken as a whole is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011).
“Approval under 23(e) involves a two-step process in which the Court first
determines whether a proposed class action settlement deserves preliminary approval and
then, after notice is given to class members, whether final approval is warranted.” Nat’l
Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 525 (C.D. Cal. 2004). At the
final approval stage, “a district court’s only role in reviewing the substance of that
settlement is to ensure that it is fair, adequate, and free from collusion.” Lane v. Facebook,
Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2012). Several factors are instructive in making such a
determination:
1) the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; 2) the risk, expense, complexity, and
likely duration of further litigation; 3) the risk of maintaining class action
status throughout the trial; 4) the amount offered in settlement; 5) the extent
of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; 6) the experience
and views of counsel; 7) the presence of a governmental participant; and 8)
the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
Id. “The relative degree of importance to be attached to any particular factor will depend
upon … the unique facts and circumstances presented by each individual case.” In re
Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, and Prod. Liab. Litig., 895 F.3d 597
(9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Additionally, when the settlement takes place before formal class certification, the
resulting settlement agreement “must withstand an even higher level of scrutiny for
evidence of collusion or other conflicts of interest than is ordinarily required under Rule
23(e) before securing the court’s approval as fair.” In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 946.
Although collusion might not be evident on the face of the settlement, indicia of collusion
include: 1) when counsel receives a disproportionate share of the settlement, 2) when the
parties negotiate an arrangement providing for the payment of attorneys’ fees separate and
apart from the class fund, and 3) when the parties arrange for fees not awarded to revert to
defendants rather than be added to the class fund. Id. at 947.
Case 2:23-cv-00691-DJH Document 94 Filed 09/15/26 Page 3 of 13

- 4 -
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
The district court must show that it comprehensively explored the relevant factors
and that the settlement is not the product of collusion amongst the settling parties. In re
Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended (June 19, 2000).
III. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
On February 11, 2026, the Parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement (“Stipulation” or “Settlement”), which is subject to review by this Court and
which, together with the exhibits thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for the
Settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the claims.2
On June 8, 2026, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement
(Doc. 81), which was subsequently amended on June 15, 2026 (Doc. 83) (as amended, the
“Preliminary Approval Order”) which, inter alia, found that the parties had made the
required showings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B), and approved the form and manner
of notice of the Settlement to be given to the Settlement Class.
The Notice, substantially in the form approved by the Court in its Preliminary
Approval Order, was mailed to all reasonably identifiable Settlement Class Members and
posted on the settlement website established by the Claims Administrator in accordance
with the Preliminary Approval Order.
The Summary Notice, substantially in the form approved by the Court, was
published in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order.
On September 14, 2026, following issuance of notice of the Settlement to the
Settlement Class, the Court held a Settlement Hearing to determine: (1) whether the terms
and conditions of the Stipulation of Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and
2 As used herein, the term “Parties” means (i) plaintiff Peter Frouws (“Lead Plaintiff”), and
(ii) defendants Robert A. Lyons, Daniel R. Boncel, and Stephen Cumming (collectively,
“Defendants”). Furthermore, the company previously known as Limelight Networks, Inc.
(“Limelight”) changed its name to Edgio, Inc. (“Edgio”) on June 16, 2022. Accordingly,
the term “Edgio” or “the Company,” as used in this Judgment and Order, refers to
Limelight when used in reference to events before June 16, 2022 and refers to Edgio when
used in reference to events on or after June 16, 2022. Similarly, the term “Edgio common
stock,” as used in this Judgment and Order, refers to shares of the common stock of
Limelight (ticker: LLNW) when referring to events before June 16, 2022, and refers to
shares of the common stock of Edgio (ticker: EGIO) when referring to events on or after
June 16, 2022.
Case 2:23-cv-00691-DJH Document 94 Filed 09/15/26 Page 4 of 13

- 5 -
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
should be approved; (2) whether judgment should be entered dismissing, with prejudice,
all claims asserted in the Action; (3) whether to approve the proposed Plan of Allocation
as a fair and reasonable method to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among Settlement
Class Members; (4) whether and in what amount to award Co-Lead Counsel attorney’s fees
and expenses; and (5) whether and in what amount to grant any awards to any Plaintiff
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4).
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion, the Settlement, and all other relevant material
submitted in connection with the Settlement Hearing,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The provisions of the Stipulation, including definitions of the terms used
therein, are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
2. For purposes of effectuating the Settlement, this Court has jurisdiction of the
subject matter of the Action and all matters relating to the Settlement, as well as personal
jurisdiction over all Parties and each of the Settlement Class Members.
3. The Court finds that, for settlement purposes only, the prerequisites for a
class action under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied
in that:
(a) the number of Settlement Class Members is so numerous that joinder
of all members thereof is impracticable;
(b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class;
(c) the claims of the Lead Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the
Settlement Class he seeks to represent; and
(d) Lead Plaintiff and Co-Lead Counsel have and will continue to fairly
and adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class.
4. The Court further finds that, for settlement purposes only, the requirements
for certification of a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure have also been satisfied in that:
(a) questions of law and fact common to the members of the Settlement
Case 2:23-cv-00691-DJH Document 94 Filed 09/15/26 Page 5 of 13

- 6 -
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
Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members of the Settlement Class; and
(b) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the claims at issue, considering:
i. the class members’ (lack of) interests in individually
controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
ii. the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the
controversy already begun by or against class members;
iii. the desirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in
this particular forum; and
iv. the (lack of) likely difficulties in managing a class action
(given, inter alia, that the proposed class here would be
certified in the context of a settlement).
5. Accordingly, the Court certifies this action as a class action, for purposes of
the Settlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, on behalf of a Class (the “Settlement Class”) consisting of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Edgio common stock (including
shares of Limelight common stock, before the company changed its name to Edgio)
between February 12, 2021 and March 10, 2023, inclusive. Excluded from the Settlement
Class are (i) Defendants, (ii) any present or former officers and directors of Edgio during
the Class Period (the “Excluded D&Os”), (iii) members of Defendants’ and Excluded
D&Os’ Immediate Family, (iv) the Affiliates of any Defendant, (v) any firm, trust,
corporation, or other entity in which any Defendant or any other excluded person or entity
has or had a majority ownership interest; and (vi) the legal representatives, heirs,
successors, and assigns of any such excluded person or entity. For the avoidance of doubt,
the foregoing exclusions do not apply where the person or entity that is excluded from the
Settlement Class (or the entity in which such person or entity has a majority ownership
interest) acts as nominee, trustee, street name holder, fund manager, or in any other
Case 2:23-cv-00691-DJH Document 94 Filed 09/15/26 Page 6 of 13

- 7 -
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
fiduciary capacity for persons or entities who otherwise would be entitled to be included
in the Settlement Class.
6. For purposes of this Settlement only, the Court appoints Lead Plaintiff Peter
Frouws as class representative, and the law firms of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP and
Schall, Brown, & Schwartz LLP as class counsel, for the Settlement Class. Lead Plaintiff
and Co-Lead Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class both in
terms of litigating the Action and in negotiating the Settlement and have satisfied the
requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) and 23(g), respectively.
7. The Court finds that the dissemination of the Notice and the publication of
the Summary Notice: (a) were implemented in accordance with the Preliminary Approval
Order; (b) constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances; (c) constituted
due and sufficient notice of these proceedings and the matters set forth herein (including
the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the right to exclude themselves from the Settlement
Class, and the right to appear at the Settlement Hearing) to all persons and entities entitled
to such notice; and (d) met the requirements of due process, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and Section 21D(a)(7) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(7) (as
amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995). The Court further finds
that the notice requirements set forth in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C.
§1715, have been satisfied.
8. No Settlement Class Member is or shall be relieved from the terms and
conditions of the Settlement, including the releases provided for in the Stipulation, based
upon the contention or proof that such Settlement Class Member failed to receive actual or
adequate notice. A full opportunity has been offered to the Settlement Class Members to
object to the proposed Settlement (and to participate in the hearing thereon), or to exclude
themselves from the Settlement Class, and there were no objections to the Settlement or
the Plan of Allocation and no requests for exclusion from the Settlement Class.
9. Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, this Court hereby fully and finally approves the Settlement set forth in the
Case 2:23-cv-00691-DJH Document 94 Filed 09/15/26 Page 7 of 13

- 8 -
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
Stipulation in all respects (including, without limitation, the amount of the Settlement, the
releases provided for therein, and the dismissal with prejudice of the Action), and finds that
the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate to Lead Plaintiff and the
Settlement Class. Specifically, the Court finds that (a) Lead Plaintiff and Co-Lead Counsel
have adequately represented the Settlement Class in connection with the Action and the
Settlement; (b) the Settlement was negotiated by the Parties at arm’s length between
experienced counsel representing the interests of Defendants and the Settlement Class, and
with the assistance of an independent and highly experienced mediator; (c) the relief
provided for the Settlement Class under the Settlement is adequate taking into account the
costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal and the proposed means of distributing the
Settlement Fund to the Settlement Class; and (d) the Settlement treats all members of the
Settlement Class equitably relative to each other. The Parties are directed to implement,
perform, and consummate the Settlement in accordance with the terms and provisions
contained in the Stipulation.
10. The Action and all of the claims asserted against Defendants in the Action
by Lead Plaintiff and on behalf of the other Settlement Class Members are hereby
dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants. The Parties shall bear their own costs and
expenses, except as expressly provided in the Stipulation.
11. The terms of the Stipulation and of this Judgment shall be forever binding on
Defendants, Lead Plaintiff, and all other Settlement Class Members (regardless of whether
or not any individual Settlement Class Member submits a Claim Form or seeks or obtains
a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund), as well as their respective successors and
assigns.
12. All Released Claims, as defined in the Stipulation, are released in accordance
with, and as provided in, the Stipulation. Accordingly, this Court orders that:
(a) Upon the Effective Date, Lead Plaintiff and each Settlement Class
Member, on behalf of themselves, and their respective heirs, executors,
administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns, in their capacities as
Case 2:23-cv-00691-DJH Document 94 Filed 09/15/26 Page 8 of 13

- 9 -
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
such, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of this Judgment shall have,
fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Released
Plaintiff’s Claims against each and every one of the Released Defendant
Persons, whether or not such Settlement Class Member executes and delivers
a Proof of Claim and Release.
(b) Upon the Effective Date, Defendants, on behalf of themselves and
each of their respective heirs, executors, trusts, trustees, administrators,
predecessors, successors, assigns, representatives, agents, and attorneys, in
their capacities as such, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of this
Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released all Released
Defendants’ Claims against each and every one of the Released Plaintiff
Persons.
13. All Settlement Class Members who have not objected to the Settlement in
the manner provided in the Notice are deemed to have waived any objections by appeal,
collateral attack, or otherwise. No Settlement Class Member will be relieved from the
terms and conditions of the Settlement, including the releases provided pursuant thereto,
based upon the contention or proof that such Settlement Class Member failed to receive
actual or adequate notice.
14. Lead Plaintiff and all Settlement Class Members are hereby barred and
enjoined from instituting, commencing, maintaining, or prosecuting in any court or tribunal
any of the Released Plaintiff’s Claims against any of the Released Defendant Persons.
Claims to enforce the terms of the Stipulation are not released.
15. Neither this Judgment, nor the Stipulation (whether or not consummated, and
including the exhibits thereto and the Plan of Allocation or any other plan of allocation that
may be approved by the Court), nor the negotiations leading to the execution of the
Stipulation, nor any proceedings taken pursuant to or in connection with the Stipulation, or
the approval of the Settlement (including any arguments proffered in connection therewith)
shall be:
Case 2:23-cv-00691-DJH Document 94 Filed 09/15/26 Page 9 of 13

- 10 -
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
(a) offered against any of the Released Defendant Persons as evidence of,
or construed as, or deemed to be evidence of any presumption,
concession, or admission by any of the Released Defendant Persons
with respect to the truth of any fact alleged by Lead Plaintiff or the
validity of any claim that was or could have been asserted or the
deficiency of any defense that has been or could have been asserted in
this Action or in any other litigation, or of any liability, negligence,
fault, or other wrongdoing of any kind of any of the Released
Defendant Persons or in any way referred to for any other reason as
against any of the Released Defendant Persons, in any arbitration
proceeding or other civil, criminal, or administrative action or
proceeding, other than such proceedings as may be necessary to
effectuate the provisions of the Stipulation;
(b) offered against any of the Released Plaintiff Persons, as evidence of,
or construed as, or deemed to be evidence of any presumption,
concession, or admission by any of the Released Plaintiff Persons that
any of their claims are without merit, that any of the Released
Defendant Persons had meritorious defenses, or that damages
recoverable under the Complaint would not have exceeded the
Settlement Amount or with respect to any liability, negligence, fault,
or wrongdoing of any kind, or in any way referred to for any other
reason as against any of the Released Plaintiff Persons, in any
arbitration proceeding or other civil, criminal, or administrative action
or proceeding, other than such proceedings as may be necessary to
effectuate the provisions of the Stipulation; or
(c) construed against any of the Released Persons as an admission,
concession, or presumption that the consideration to be given
hereunder represents the amount which could be or would have been
Case 2:23-cv-00691-DJH Document 94 Filed 09/15/26 Page 10 of 13

- 11 -
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
recovered after trial; provided, however, that the Parties and the
Released Persons and their respective counsel may refer to it to
effectuate the protections from liability granted hereunder or to
otherwise enforce the terms of the Settlement; and provided, further,
notwithstanding the foregoing, any of the Released Persons may file
the Stipulation, this Judgment, or order of the Court related hereto in
any other action that has been or may be brought against them, in order
to support any and all defenses or counterclaims based on res judicata,
collateral estoppel, good-faith settlement, judgment bar or reduction,
or any other theory of claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar
defense or counterclaim.
16. The Court hereby finds that the Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable, and
the Claims Administrator is directed to administer the Settlement in accordance with the
Stipulation and the Plan of Allocation.
17. The Court hereby finds and concludes that the formula for the calculation of
the claims of Authorized Claimants, which is set forth in the Notice sent to Settlement
Class Members, provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the proceeds
of the Net Settlement Fund established by the Stipulation among Settlement Class
Members, with due consideration having been given to administrative convenience and
necessity.
18. The Court finds and concludes that, during the course of the Action, the
Parties and each of their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all other similar statutes.
19. Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree in writing to such
amendments, modifications, and expansions of the Stipulation and reasonable extensions
of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Stipulation, provided that such
amendments, modifications, expansions, and extensions do not materially alter the rights
of the Settlement Class Members, Released Plaintiff Persons, or Released Defendant
Case 2:23-cv-00691-DJH Document 94 Filed 09/15/26 Page 11 of 13

- 12 -
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
Persons under the Stipulation.
20. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this Court retains
continuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of the Settlement and any award or
distribution of the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon; (b) disposition of
the Settlement Fund; (c) any motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and/or Litigation
Expenses by Co-Lead Counsel in the Action that will be paid from the Settlement Fund;
(d) any motion for a service award payable from the Settlement Fund; (e) all Parties hereto
for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and administrating the Stipulation; and (f) the
Settlement Class Members for all matters relating to the Action.
21. A separate order shall be entered regarding (a) the motion of Co-Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses; and (b)
the motion for an award for Lead Plaintiff. Such orders shall in no way affect or delay the
finality of this Judgment and shall not affect or delay the Effective Date of the Settlement.
22. If the Effective Date of the Settlement fails to occur, then, in any such event,
(a) this Order shall be vacated, rendered null and void, and be of no further force and effect,
except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation, and this Order shall be without prejudice
to any Party; (b) the Stipulation, including any amendment(s) thereof, shall be null and
void and of no further force or effect (except to the extent otherwise expressly provided in
the Stipulation), without prejudice to any Party, and may not be introduced as evidence or
referred to in the Action, or any action or proceeding by any Person for any purpose, and
(c) each Party shall be restored to his, her, or its respective position as it existed
immediately prior to December 9, 2025, and the Parties shall promptly confer on a new
scheduling stipulation to govern further proceedings in the Action, as provided in the
Stipulation.
23. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Judgment and Order
Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and immediate entry by the Clerk of
the Court is expressly directed.
/ / /
Case 2:23-cv-00691-DJH Document 94 Filed 09/15/26 Page 12 of 13

- 13 -
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
Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement (Doc. 88) is GRANTED and Judgment is entered accordingly.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to terminate
this matter.
Dated this 15th day of September, 2026.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:23-cv-00691-DJH Document 94 Filed 09/15/26 Page 13 of 13