STATE OF NEW YORK

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

LETITIA JAMES

ATTORNEY GENERAL

JANE M. AZIA

BUREAU CHIEF

CONSUMER FRAUDS & PROTECTION BUREAU

28 LIBERTY STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10005 ● PHONE (212) 416-8321 ● FAX (212) 416-6003 ● WWW.AG.NY.GOV

January 20, 2021

By ECF

Hon. Claudia Wilken

Oakland Courthouse

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

1301 Clay Street

Oakland, CA 94612

Re: Vasquez et al v. Libre by Nexus, Inc., No. 4:17-cv-755 (N.D. Cal.)

Judge Wilken:

We write on behalf of the States of New York, Massachusetts and Virginia (the “States”), 

which were granted leave to appear as amicus curiae in opposition to the class action 

settlement that the Court preliminarily approved on July 31, 2020. At the end of the 

December 9, 2020 hearing, the Court ordered the States to file an update two weeks prior to 

the next hearing scheduled for February 3, 2021. While Defendant has said it may wish to 

“dissolve” the settlement (see ECF Nos. 163-3, 170), the States file this letter-brief in case 

final approval of the settlement moves forward. The States also file this letter-brief in 

accordance with the Court’s Order dated January 19, 2021, which directed objectors to 

“address the effect of the judgment entered against Libre by Nexus’ parent company, Nexus 

Services, Inc., in RLI Insurance Company v. Nexus Services, Inc., No. 5:18-cv-66 (W.D. Va.), 

on October 23, 2020.” ECF No. 171.

As set forth in the States’ January 13, 2021 letter (ECF No. 163), the States requested 

information and materials from Libre shortly after the December 9 hearing to evaluate the 

Libre’s financial condition. See ECF No. 163-1 (States’ Dec. 17, 2020 letter to Libre 

identifying a list of documents and information that would be “sufficient to evaluate the 

company’s financial condition”).1 The States still have not received any of the repeatedly 

requested information from Defendant, nor a date by which Defendant will provide any 

 1 See ECF No. 160 at 42:1-7 (Dec. 9, 2020 Hearing Tr.) (“THE COURT: So at least by January you 

could make a list of what you thought you needed, and you could give it to them and see if it's 

forthcoming, and then come back and say, well, they said they would, but not until March or, no, they 

said they wouldn't or, yes, they said give us -- they'd give us 1, 2 and 3 but not 4, 5 and 6. At least, we 

could get the lay of the land.”).

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 173 Filed 01/20/21 Page 1 of 3
Hon. Claudia Wilken

January 20, 2021

Page 2 of 3

such information. In short, despite the States’ efforts, Libre has provided no new 

information that could form a basis on which to change the States’ original objection.

The judgment entered against Libre by Nexus’ parent company, Nexus Services, Inc., in RLI 

Insurance Company v. Nexus Services, Inc. should have no effect here.2 In Libre’s 

“Supplemental Notice” filed January 14, 2021, Libre contends—without providing any 

evidence—that “Nexus lacks the necessary resources to secure and post a supersedeas bond 

pending appeal.” ECF No. 170 at 2. Libre also contends that the RLI judgment “drastically 

affects the financial health of the company”—again without evidence. Id. But Libre was 

aware of the risk of the judgment at the time it executed the settlement agreement.3 And it 

was aware of the actual judgment at the time of the filing of papers in support of the motion 

for final approval of the settlement.

The relevant question here, from the States’ perspective, is whether Nexus Services, its 

principals, and its various affiliates and subsidiaries (including Libre) have assets sufficient 

to further compensate the class—and yet would receive a discounted obligation and an 

expansive release of liability in the proposed settlement. See ECF No. 155 at 3-4 (States’ 

amicus reply brief identifying ways to address this concern). Libre still has made no 

attempt to adequately answer this question, either to the States or to the Court. Libre 

cannot rely on threadbare attorney statements to prove its financial condition, or the 

financial condition of its principals, parent and affiliates.

With respect to the States’ other grounds for objection, the States have no additional 

information as to whether the parties have addressed the issues of sending additional text 

notices or establishing a methodology for determining whether the Defendant has met the 

financial benchmarks contemplated by the settlement.

Without more information, the States maintain their objections to final approval of the 

settlement that the Court identified as outstanding during the December 9, 2020 hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph P. Mueller

Assistant Attorney General

 2 Under the judgment, Nexus Services was ordered (1) to deposit with RLI $2.4 million to be held as 

collateral security and (2) to pay losses, costs, damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount 

of approximately $3.3 million. ECF No. 170-1 at 26-27.

3 See Hearing Tr. at 235-36, RLI Ins. Co. v. Nexus Services, Inc., 5:18-cv-66 (W.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2020), 

ECF No. 545 (Nexus Services’ CEO testifying that he was “part of negotiating” the “California class 

action” settlement, explaining “I felt very good about the company’s ability to meet that obligation, of 

course. I wouldn’t have agreed to it if I didn’t think we could meet it. Just like we meet the 

obligations to RLI every month, we will meet those obligations.”).

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 173 Filed 01/20/21 Page 2 of 3
Hon. Claudia Wilken

January 20, 2021

Page 3 of 3

cc: Erin Witte

Assistant Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia (by email)

Jonathan Burke

Assistant Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (by email)

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 173 Filed 01/20/21 Page 3 of 3