IN RE CARLOTZ, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Background

Xinbao Wang and Fen Wang, identified in the filing as pro se objectors, submitted a post-judgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and the court’s inherent authority. They sought to correct the record and clarify objections concerning a June 10, 2025 settlement fairness hearing.

Arguments

The Wangs argued that the court’s statement that they had chosen not to appear was factually wrong. They said that, after the hearing was rescheduled, the updated notice did not provide a telephone number, videoconference link, or courtroom location. They also asserted that they were not given individualized access instructions and that attempts to obtain information from lead counsel were unanswered or unsuccessful.

They further argued that these circumstances denied them the notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard required by procedural due process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). They requested correction of the record and argued that the judgment should be vacated or amended under Rule 60(b), or reversed on appeal.

Ruling

Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion. The court stated that the Wangs were free to advance their arguments on appeal and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 225. The provided text does not give additional reasons for the denial.