Because the Settlement Class includes Class members from the 50 states, the appropriate State officials are the 50 State Attorneys General. 28 U.S.C.A. §1715(a)(2) (“If there is no primary regulator, supervisor, or licensing authority, or the matters alleged in the class action are not subject to regulation or supervision by that person, then the appropriate State official shall be the State attorney general.”).

Because the Settlement Class includes Class Members from the 50 states, the appropriate State officials are the 50 State attorneys general. 28 U.S.C.A. §1715(a)(2) (“If there is no primary regulator, supervisor, or licensing authority, or the matters alleged in the class action are not subject to regulation or supervision by that person, then the appropriate State official shall be the State attorney general.”).

Finally, BNYM has found no authority (and the DAG cites none) to support the contention that the right to receive notice of a class action settlement, pursuant to § 1715, grants to a state official standing to intervene in that proceeding.2 CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the DAG’s petition to intervene in this proceeding.3 Dated: New York, New York November 9, 2011 DECHERT LLP Hector Gonzalez James M. McGuire 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 (212) 698-3500 /s/ Matthew D. Ingber MAYER BROWN LLP Jason H.P. Kravitt Matthew D. Ingber 1675 Broadway New York, New York 10019 (212) 506-2500 Attorneys for Petitioner The Bank of New York Mellon 2 Connecticut v. Physicians Health Services, the only case cited by the DAG, is inapposite. See 287 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2002) (not discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1715 and affirming dismissal of action because the Connecticut attorney general lacked standing to sue and could not bring the suit in a parens patriae capacity). 3 At a minimum, as BNYM requested at the November 3 status conference, the Court should reserve decision on the DAG’s intervention motion pending a ruling from the Court of Appeals on BNYM’s petition for permission to appeal the Court’s order denying the remand motion.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d). Assuming that this occurs within 10 days after this filing with the Court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), the final approval hearing can be scheduled on or shortly after September 30, 2015, because the Jewish High Holidays continue through September 23rd and it will be difficult for us to address pre-final approval hearing matters until the holidays have passed. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an Order: (1) conditionally certifying this case as a class action pursuant to FED. R. CIV.

VII. DEFENDANT PROVIDED NOTICE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1715 The Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, requires that defendants send notices providing information regarding a class action settlement to “appropriate Federal and State Officials.” Though this case does not arise under the Class Action Fairness Act, Defendant sent notices to the appropriate officials, the United States Attorney General and the Attorney Generals of the states where Settlement Class and Collective members reside, on October 7, 2013.

. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter the Preliminary Approval Order, attached as Exhibit B to Lesser Decl., which, inter alia: (1) certifies the Stipulated Collective Action Class and Stipulated Rule 23 Class for settlement purposes only; (2) grants Preliminary Approval of the Settlement; (3) appoints Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP and Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP as Settlement Class Counsel; (4) appoints Plaintiff Catherine Wilkie as Settlement Class Representative; (5) directs distribution of the proposed Notices to all Stipulated Class Members regarding settlement of the claims against Defendant Gentiva Health Services, Inc. on a final and complete basis, in accordance with this motion; and (6) sets a date for the final fairness hearing for a date no earlier than one hundred fifty-five (155) days, or as soon thereafter as practicable, after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, to account for the time required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715 and per the terms of the Settlement Agreement at the Eastern District of California. Settlement.

The officials then have at least 90 days to decide whether they wish to take any action regarding the settlement. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d). In this action, the Defendants sent the notices to the appropriate officials and no official objected to the proposed settlement.

Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel and counsel for the City respectfully request that the Court certify the proposed revised class. 6 Under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), the Consent Judgment and other materials must be served on the appropriate New York State and Federal officials within ten days of the filing of the proposed settlement and, under 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d), final approval of the Consent Judgment cannot be granted until 90 days after such notice is given. Such notice will be served promptly if the Court grants preliminary approval.

[D.E. 41- 1, ¶ 18]. Moreover, the Order granting Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement required Red Bull, within ten (10) days of entry, to serve the Order and the Stipulation upon the appropriate Federal and State officials pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1715, and Red Bull did so. Moreover, Mr. Andrews’ objection that that Red Bull has yet to deposit any money into the Settlement Fund is baseless.

FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 13-cv-02998 JST 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 Internet5 and no objections to date have been made by any members of the Settlement Class. Finally, notice was provided to state and federal officials in accordance with Title 28 United States Code Section 1715. See Docket No. 64.