Alexander v. Harris et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE 	) 	Lead Case No.
RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, 	) 	1:22–md–03035–STA–jay
)
) 	ALL CASES
ORDER GRANTING APPROVAL TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED LONG FORM
NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS
ORDER DIRECTING NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Proposed Draft Class Notice (ECF No. 1189) filed June 12,
2026. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS approval to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Form
of Notice and DIRECTS notice to the members of the class.
BACKGROUND
The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class
certification in an order (ECF No. 1099) entered on January 2, 2026 (“the Class Certification
Order”). The Court certified the following class claims, issues, and defenses for class action:
(1) civil conspiracy against the Estate of Dr. Jerome V. Harris; Sandra Harris;
Robert Eaton; Symetra Life Insurance Company; Financial Freedom Funds, LLC;
Day & Night Solar; Trinity Financial; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Financial
Technologies, LLC; and the Motorskill Entities (Second Am. Compl., count 8);
(2) Symetra’s affirmative defenses on the statute of limitations, including (a) the
application of the discovery rule and when plan participants learned of facts
sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice that they had suffered an injury as a
result of wrongful conduct; and (b) whether Defendants fraudulently concealed
their alleged wrongs from plan participants.
(3) any other affirmative defense preserved by Symetra and Defendants named in
the civil conspiracy count.
Consistent with the Court’s initial Class Certification Order, Plaintiffs proposed a long form notice
to the class concerning the certification of these claims.
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 1118 Filed 06/18/26 Page 1 of 7
PageID <pageID>

2
The Court subsequently granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial reconsideration in an order
(ECF No. 1188) entered May 29, 2026. The Court amended its Class Certification Order and
certified the following additional class claims and issues for class action:
(1) breach of fiduciary duty against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Robert Eaton
(Second Am. Compl., count 1);
(2) conversion against the Estate of Dr. Harris; Sandra Harris; Eaton; Financial
Freedom 	Funds, 	LLC; 	Financial 	Freedom 	Group, 	Inc.; 	Trinity 	Financial
Consultants, LLC; Financial Technologies, LLC; and Day & Night Solar (count 4);
(3) fraudulent concealment against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Eaton (count 5);
(4) fraudulent misrepresentation against the Estate of Dr. Harris (count 6); and
(5) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Financial Freedom Funds,
LLC; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Financial Technologies, LLC; Day & Night
Solar; Trinity Financial Consultants, LLC; the Motorskill Entities; and Sandra
Harris (count 9); and
(6) any affirmative defense preserved by the Defendants named in these counts and
certified for class action.
Based on these amendments to the Class Certification Order, the Court directed class counsel to
propose a revised long form notice to the class and submit its proposal within 14 days of the entry
of this order. Plaintiffs’ proposed notice followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class actions and the process for class
certification. Where, as in this case, a court certifies a class action under Rule 23(b)(3), notice to
the members of the class is mandatory. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). The notice required in a Rule
23(b)(3) class action implicates the due process rights of the class members, “guarantee[ing] them
the opportunity to be excluded from the class action and not be bound by any subsequent
judgment.” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173–74, 84 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 1118 Filed 06/18/26 Page 2 of 7
PageID <pageID>

3
(1974). In order to satisfy due process, the class notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all
the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action” and their rights. Does
1-2 v. Deja Vu Servs., Inc., 925 F.3d 886, 900 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Vassalle v. Midland Funding
LLC, 708 F.3d 747, 759 (6th Cir. 2013)).
Specifically, a court certifying the class action “must direct to class members the best notice
that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be
identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). While the court has discretion
over the methods for giving notice (“United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate
means”), whichever method of delivery the court approves, the notice itself must contain several
required elements:
(i) the nature of the action;
(ii) the definition of the class certified;
(iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses;
(iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so
desires;
(v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion;
(vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and
(vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3).
Id. Furthermore, the notice must “clearly and concisely state [the elements] in plain, easily
understood language.” Id.
ANALYSIS
The Court finds that the long form notice proposed by Plaintiffs meets these requirements.
First, the long form notice as drafted communicates the relevant facts about the class action in
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 1118 Filed 06/18/26 Page 3 of 7
PageID <pageID>

4
language accessible to a layperson. “The direction that class-certification notice be couched in
plain, easily understood language is a reminder of the need to work unremittingly at the difficult
task of communicating with class members.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Committee Notes on 2023
Amendments. The notice must at a minimum properly “alert class members to their right to ‘opt
out’ of [the Rule 23](b)(3) class.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617, 117 S.Ct.
2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997).
The Court finds that the proposed notice satisfies this standard. The notice contains clear,
concise, plain, and easily understood language regarding (i) the nature of the action, (ii) the
definition of the class certified, (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses, (iv) that a class member
may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires, (v) that the court will
exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion, (vi) the time and manner for
requesting exclusion, and (vi) the binding effect of a class judgment on members. Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(2)(B). The proposed notice therefore satisfies the requirements of Rule 23.
Next, class counsel have proposed a plan of distribution that also complies with Rule
23(c)’s test. Plaintiffs propose sending a long form notice of the class action via U.S. mail and e-
mail, just as they did to convey notice of the settlements reached as to some Defendants (AMEC,
Newport Group, and Symetra Life Insurance) at earlier points in the MDL. Mailing notice by first
class U.S. mail to each class member’s last known address meets the requirements of Rule
23(c)(2)(B). Lindberg v. UHS of Lakeside, LLC, 761 F. Supp. 2d 752, 765 (W.D. Tenn. 2011) (“In
FLSA cases, first-class mail is generally considered to be the ‘best notice practicable’ to ensure
that proper notice is received by potential class members.”). Email notice is also appropriate. Van
Buren v. Historic Images, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-02917-MSN-cgc, 2022 WL 1632659, at *5 (W.D.
Tenn. May 23, 2022) (“[W]hile first-class mail has often been referred to as the ‘best notice
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 1118 Filed 06/18/26 Page 4 of 7
PageID <pageID>

5
practicable,’ 	recent 	cases 	have 	held 	that 	email 	notification 	is 	also 	appropriate.”).
Plaintiffs also propose hosting the long-form notice on the same website where Plaintiffs’
earlier settlements were hosted, www.amechurchretirementsettlement.com. Websites and other
forms of online dissemination are appropriate, though usually just to supplement traditional
methods of serving notice. 1 McLaughlin on Class Actions § 5:81 (22nd ed.) (“To date posting
class notices on websites, including the defendant’s or a class-action website or link created for
purposes of the case, absent exceptional justification has been used only in conjunction with other
more traditional media of mass communication, and it is difficult to envisage the internet
displacing notice by first-class mail as the constitutional baseline.”).
Here, the Court has already approved the use of the same website to communicate notice
and information about Plaintiffs’ settlements on behalf of the class. The Court continues to find
this method, used in conjunction with first class mail and email, to be well-designed means of
giving the members of the class information about the class action component of the MDL.
Plaintiffs advise the Court that they expect to have the settlement administrator, Verita
Global, LLC, disseminate the class action notice. Verita was previously selected as the
administrator for the AMEC and Newport settlements and, more recently, the Symetra settlement.
The fact that Verita has already administered notice of these settlements suggests to the Court that
continuing to employ Verita to administer the class action will best serve the interests of the case.
In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ proposed notice and proposal for disseminating
notice meets Rule 23(c)’s requirements for giving “the best notice that is practicable under the
circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through
reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2).
Finally, Plaintiffs propose that the Court delay sending notice to the class. Plaintiffs explain
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 1118 Filed 06/18/26 Page 5 of 7
PageID <pageID>

6
that the Court has already given preliminary approval to Plaintiffs’ settlement of their class action
claims with Symetra. The current deadline for class members to object or opt out of the Symetra
settlement is July 17, 2026. The members of the settlement class with Symetra are also the
members of the class action certified by the Court. Class counsel are concerned about possible
confusion if the opt-out period for the Symetra settlement overlaps with the opt-out period for the
class action. Plaintiffs propose then that the Court delay sending the class action notice to the class
members.
The touchstone of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) is giving “the best notice that is practicable under the
circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(B) (granting a court
the further discretion to issue orders “to protect class members and fairly conduct the action”). The
Court tends to agree with class counsel that simultaneously distributing two different notices, the
notice of the Symetra settlement and the class action notice, each with its own set of deadlines to
object or opt out and to the same individuals, would unnecessarily invite confusion. The comments
to Rule 23 address this very concern and the wisdom of deferring notice, albeit in the context of a
settlement coming close on the heels of class certification (and not, as here, the other way around):
“In some cases, particularly if settlement appears imminent at the time of certification, it may be
possible to achieve equivalent protection by deferring notice and the opportunity to elect exclusion
until actual settlement terms are known.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Committee Notes on 2023
Amendments to Rule 23(e)(3).
In order to best serve the needs of the case, protect class members, and fairly conduct the
action, the Court will defer ordering notice of the class action. The Court will adopt July 31, 2026,
as the Notice Date and orders that notice be disseminated no later than that date. Based on a
proposed Notice Date of July 31, Plaintiffs have also suggested an opt-out deadline of September
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 1118 Filed 06/18/26 Page 6 of 7
PageID <pageID>

7
11, 2026. Accordingly, the Court sets September 11, 2026, as the opt-out deadline for the notice
of class action.
CONCLUSION
The Court hereby GRANTS approval to Plaintiffs’ proposed long form notice and plan for
sending notice of the class action. The long form notice is attached as an exhibit to this order. The
Court DIRECTS notice to the members of the class and sets the Notice Date as no later than July
31, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: June 18, 2026
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 1118 Filed 06/18/26 Page 7 of 7
PageID <pageID>