Motion for approval of class action notice plan
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 23CV409763 Spencer v. National Builders & Motion: Compel is MOOT, Services Inc. (Class Action/PAGA) request for sanctions is DENIED
Click LINE 2 24CV446394 MAHESH JAMMALAMADAKA et al vs Hearing: Motion for Class MARK SAWYER et al Certification is GRANTED
Click on line 2 for tentative ruling LINE 3 24CV453335 Taylor Morrison of California, LLC et Hearing: Demurrer is al vs AIG Specialty Insurance Company SUSTAINED with 20 days’ et al leave to amend, Motion to Strike is MOOT
Click on lines 3-4 for tentative ruling LINE 4 24CV453335 Taylor Morrison of California, LLC et Hearing: Motion to Strike al vs AIG Specialty Insurance Company et al LINE 5 25CV465582 Juan Andrade-Ortega vs APEX Motion: Reconsider is CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., a DENIED California corporation et al Click on line 5 for tentative ruling LINE 6 LINE 7 LINE 8 LINE 9 LINE 10 LINE 11 LINE 12 LINE 13
Calendar Line 2
Case Name: Mahesh Jammalamadaka, et al. v. Mark Sawyer, et al. Case No.: 24CV446394
Plaintiffs Mahesh Jammalamadaka, Marta Nicole Rodzen, Carlos Rodriguez, and Dorene Strand (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action against defendants ACM North, Mas Financing, Mark A. Sawyer, and Elke Stephenson (collectively, “Defendants”) for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and related claims arising from an unlawful rollover bridge loan scheme.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of class action notice plan, which is unopposed. For reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
In the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiffs allege that as early as 2019 and continuing through 2024, Defendants Sawyer and Stephenson developed and operated an investment scheme, which they branded and marketed as the “Money Factory” program. (FAC, ¶¶ 1, 24.) They targeted individuals by promising a unique investment opportunity that would purportedly yield high returns with minimal risk. (FAC, ¶ 24.) The core of the program was an offer to invest in short-term promissory notes (known as “bridge loans") and use the returns to fund life insurance policies, thereby “making your money work for you” in two ways. (Ibid.) Stephenson and Sawyer approached people through various means including personal referrals, informational seminars, and one-on-one financial consultations. (FAC, ¶ 25.)
Sawyer and Stephenson held meetings via Zoom beginning in December 2020 and at various times, represented that Plaintiffs (and other Class members) would be excluded from the investment scheme if they did not comply with instructions. (FAC, ¶¶ 26-27.) Defendants made representations regarding high guaranteed returns, safety and security, short-term liquidity, experienced management and oversight, integrated life insurance benefits, and assurances of reliability. (FAC, ¶ 28.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendants took great pains to conceal the true nature of their operations from Plaintiffs, including false reassurances and fabricated updates. (FAC, ¶ 30.) They blamed delays on external factors. (FAC, ¶ 34.) By late 2023 and 2024, the Money Factory scheme began to unravel, and more investors demanded returns or redemption of principal. (FAC, ¶ 32.) Defendants ran out of new infusions of cash needed to sustain their scheme. (Ibid.) As a result, they defaulted on their promissory notes owed to Plaintiffs and by early 2024, they had effectively stopped making any payments to most, if not all, investors. (Ibid.)
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs initiated the instant action on August 30, 2024, with the filing of the Complaint and on April 24, 2025, they filed the operative FAC, which asserts the following causes of action: (1) breach of written promissory note; (2) breach of written contract; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) fraudulent misrepresentation; (5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) conversion; (8)
violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; and (9) violation of Business & Professions Code section 17500, et seq. On September 8, 2025, the Court (Hon. Adams) issued its order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
II. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION APPROVAL FOR CLASS ACTION NOTICE PLAN
Plaintiffs request an order: approving the proposed method and manner of class notice; approving the proposed long-form and short-form notices; appointing CPT Group, Inc. as the notice administrator; approving the proposed notice dissemination schedule; and authorizing Plaintiffs to proceed with the dissemination of notice to the certified Class.
A.
Legal Standard
The content of a class notice is subject to court approval. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.766(d).) “If class members are to be given the right to request exclusion from the class, the notice must include the following: (1) a brief explanation of the case, including the basic contentions or denials of the parties; (2) a statement that the court will exclude the member from the class if the member so requests by a specified date; (3) a procedure for the member to follow in requesting exclusions from the class; (4) a statement that the judgment, whether favorable or not, will bind all members who do not request exclusion; and (5) a statement that any member who does not request exclusion may, if the member so desires, enter an appearance through counsel. (Ibid.)
In determining the manner of the notice, the court must consider: “(1) the interests of the class; (2) the type of relief requested; (3) the stake of the individual class members; (4) the cost of notifying class members; (5) the resources of the parties; (6) the possible prejudice to class members who do not receive notice; and (7) the res judicata effect on class members.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.766(e).)
B.
Discussion
Plaintiffs state the Class notice is intended to: inform Class members of the existence and pendency of this action and the Court’s certification order; describe the claims asserted; advise Class members that they may be bound by the judgment unless they timely opt out; explain the procedures and deadlines for opting out of the Class; inform Class members that individualized damages may be determined through a claims process approved by the Court; inform Class members about the procedure for requesting exclusion; and satisfy constitutional due process by providing the best notice practicable under the circumstances. (Motion, p. 4:26- 5:13.)
Plaintiffs propose CPT Group, Inc. (“CPT”) as the Class notice administrator and state that it will: secure and maintain the Class list; update addresses using the USPS National Change of Address database; mail and re-mail notices; send email notices where addresses are available; maintain a case website and toll-free number; receive, log, and validate opt-out requests; provide interim status reports to Plaintiffs’ counsel; and submit a final declaration of compliance to the Court. CPT is approved as the notice administrator.
Class members have 60 days to opt-out and they may do so by providing written notice with their name, address, and a statement of exclusion. Within 14 days of the completion of the notice process, CPT shall submit a declaration of compliance.
Here, the proposed notices, which will be provided in English, inform the Class members of the nature of the lawsuit and their rights as a Class member. They include: a detailed explanation of the case, including the basic contentions or denials of the parties; a statement that the court will exclude the member from the Class if they request so by a specified date; a procedure for the member to follow in requesting exclusions from the class; and a statement that the judgment, whether favorable or not, will bind all members who do not request exclusion; and a statement that any member who does not request exclusion may, if the member so desires, enter an appearance through counsel. As noted above, Class Members are given 60 days to exclude themselves or object.
The proposed notices contain the necessary information pursuant to Rules of Court, rule 3.766(d). Thus, they are approved. The Class notice shall be mailed within 30 days of this order. CPT shall submit a declaration of compliance within 14 days of completion of the notice process.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.
The Court will prepare the order.
- oo0oo -
- oo0oo -
4