McMahon, J.: Currently before the court is James J. Hayes’s motion for a declaration that the Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel in the above-captioned action were required to assert certain fraud claims arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against Morgan Stanley & Co., on behalf of the Hayes and the other class members in connection with the class action that brought against Facebook., Inc., ten years ago, and that was settled in 2018 (See Dkt. No. 625) (Motion for Declaratory Judgment filed January 4, 2022) (the “Motion” or “Mot.”).

Hayes’s motion arises from the settlement of a securities class action brought based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions made in the registration statement for Facebook’s May 2012 initial public offering (the “IPO”).

Hayes raised the same issue on appeal of Judge Sweet’s approval order (approving the Settlement), arguing that “Lead Counsels did not adequately represent their named plaintiff client when they declined to amend the Consolidated Complaint to include Exchange Act claims against Morgan Stanley.” (Appeal Dkt. No. 108 at 24)1; (see also id. at 26) (“Conflicted Lead Counsels Abused Their Authority By Declining To Amend the Consolidated Complaint To Include Exchange Act Claims Against Morgan Stanley”).

Hayes’s motion is another frivolous and vexatious attempt to relitigate precisely the same argument that he raised previously with the District Court (Judge Sweet) and with the Second Circuit.

As Hayes’s arguments have already been squarely addressed and soundly rejected on the merits, there is nothing for this court to do except deny Hayes’s renewed motion as a paradigmatic example of a frivolous and vexatious litigation.