Head v. Sports
O’SEAN HEAD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Underdog Sports, LLC d/b/a Underdog Fantasy
- Charles Breyer
- 3:25-cv-05542
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In O’SEAN HEAD v. Underdog Sports, Judge Breyer ordered a 30-day stay while the parties continued settlement negotiations.
The stay affects O’Sean Head, the proposed class, and Underdog Sports, LLC d/b/a Underdog Fantasy by pausing proceedings for 30 days while settlement negotiations continue.
What happened
O’SEAN HEAD v. Underdog Sports, LLC d/b/a Underdog Fantasy is a proposed class action that the parties said they were trying to settle. They reported substantial progress in negotiations involving this case and a related case in the Eastern District of New York.
The parties jointly requested an additional 30-day pause in the case so they could finalize a settlement. They agreed to file another joint status report about settlement by April 13, 2026.
Judge Breyer ordered the requested 30-day stay pursuant to the parties’ agreement. The order did not decide the claims or state that a settlement had been reached.
The detailed version
- Head v. Sports · No. 3:25-cv-05542
- Charles Breyer
- Mar. 13, 2026
Background
O’Sean Head brought this proposed class action against Underdog Sports, LLC d/b/a Underdog Fantasy. The complaint was filed on July 1, 2025. The parties were represented by counsel.
The parties reported that they had continued settlement negotiations and had made substantial progress. They also stated that Underdog was a defendant in a separate proposed class action in the Eastern District of New York and that both cases had been stayed while the parties negotiated a possible resolution of both matters.
Request and Ruling
The parties jointly stipulated to, and requested, an additional 30-day stay of proceedings to allow them to finalize a settlement. They agreed to submit a joint status report concerning the settlement’s status on or before April 13, 2026.
The court ordered the stay pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. The order did not resolve the underlying claims, approve a settlement, or state that the parties had finalized one.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.