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 Head v. Underdog Fantasy, Judge Breyer granted the parties' joint request to stay the case through September 25, 2026, to allow settlement negotiations to continue.
Plaintiff O'Sean Head and the proposed class of similarly situated individuals, as well as defendant Underdog Sports, LLC d/b/a Underdog Fantasy, are directly affected. Anyone involved in the related New York class action (Ballentine) may also be affected, as a global settlement covering both cases is being pursued.
What happened
In Head v. Underdog Sports, LLC d/b/a Underdog Fantasy (Case No. 3:25-cv-05542-CRB, N.D. Cal.), plaintiff O'Sean Head filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Underdog Fantasy on July 1, 2025. The case has been repeatedly paused at both sides' request while the parties work toward a settlement that would also resolve a related class action filed against the same defendant in federal court in New York.
This is the ninth consecutive stay granted in the case. Each prior pause lasted roughly 30 days. The parties report they have made substantial progress in settlement talks and want additional time to finalize terms. A parallel proceeding in New York is scheduled for a status conference on September 24, 2026, and the parties want the two cases to move in step toward a global resolution.
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the joint request and ordered the case stayed through September 25, 2026. The parties must file a joint status report on or before that date updating the court on the status of settlement.
The detailed version
- Head v. Sports · No. 3:25-cv-05542
- Charles Breyer
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
Plaintiff O'Sean Head filed this putative class action (a lawsuit brought on behalf of the named plaintiff and others in similar situations) against Underdog Sports, LLC, doing business as Underdog Fantasy, on July 1, 2025, in the Northern District of California. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
The defendant is also named in a separate putative class action, Ballentine v. Underdog Sports, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01106-NRM-MMH, pending in the Eastern District of New York. Both cases have been stayed while the parties attempt to negotiate a settlement covering both actions.
Procedural History of Stays
Starting in December 2025, the parties entered into a series of stipulated (mutually agreed) stays, each lasting approximately 30 days, which the court successively granted. The stays occurred as follows:
- December 16, 2025: 30-day stay ordered (ECF 48) - January 14, 2026: Additional 30-day stay ordered (ECF 50) - February 12, 2026: Additional 30-day stay ordered (ECF 52) - March 13, 2026: Additional 30-day stay ordered (ECF 54) - April 16, 2026: Additional 30-day stay ordered (ECF 56) - May 19, 2026: Additional 30-day stay through June 18, 2026 ordered (ECF 58) - June 22, 2026: Additional 30-day stay through July 20, 2026 ordered (ECF 60) - July 21, 2026: Additional 30-day stay through August 19, 2026 ordered (ECF 62)
The current filing is the parties' ninth request for a stay.
Current Request
On August 19, 2026, both parties jointly submitted a status report, stipulation, and proposed order requesting a further stay through September 25, 2026. The parties state they have continued to negotiate and have made substantial progress toward settlement. They also note that on August 14, 2026, the parties in the New York Ballentine action filed a joint status report and agreed to a telephonic status conference on September 24, 2026. The parties argue that aligning the stay in this case with that conference date may allow them to finalize a global settlement, avoid unnecessary litigation, and conserve judicial resources. The parties affirm that no party will be prejudiced by the additional stay.
Order
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the stipulated request and ordered the case stayed through September 25, 2026. The parties are required to submit a joint status report on or before September 25, 2026, reporting on the status of settlement.
Notes
This document is a joint stipulation and proposed order, not a merits ruling. The court's action is purely procedural — pausing the case to allow settlement talks to continue. The underlying claims are not described or adjudicated.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.