PERCIFIELD v. EAST TENTH STREET CHURCH OF GOD
Filing
43
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, RELEASE OF CLAIMS AND DIRECTING PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS AND ATTORNEY FEES 39 . IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the parties shall notify the Court when all settlement funds have been paid in full. At that time, the Court will enter an Order of Final Judgment dismissing this matter in its entirety with prejudice. ***SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 7/29/2011. (CKM)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ERICA PERCIFIELD, on Behalf of Herself )
and All Others Similarly Situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
EAST TENTH STREET CHURCH OF
)
GOD,
)
)
Defendant.
)
Collective Action
CAUSE NO. 1:10-cv-159 SEB-DML
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, RELEASE OF CLAIMS
AND DIRECTING PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS AND ATTORNEY FEES
The lead plaintiff, Erica Percifield, in this case has alleged collective action wages claims
against Defendant, East Tenth Street Church of God, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. §216. On March 30, 2011, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. See Doc.
#35-1. Also on March 30, 2011, the parties filed their Joint Motion for Approval of the Notice to
Collective Action Members of Settlement and to Schedule a Final Approval Hearing. See Doc.
#35. On May 23, 2011, this Court entered an Order on Joint Motion for Approval of the Notice
to Collective Action Members of Settlement and to Schedule a Final Approval Hearing. See
Doc. #37. On May 28, 2011, each potential collective member was mailed the Notice and Opt-In
Form.
The deadline to opt-in to this action was July 12, 2011. Thirteen (13) of the 29 potential
collective members timely returned their Opt-In Forms to Plaintiff's counsel. Addresses for three
(3) of the potential collective members could not be located.
Pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement, each of the opt-in collective members will receive their actual wages owed for
-1-
attending monthly staff meetings. Additionally, the parties have agreed that Plaintiff's counsel is
to be paid $8,000.00 in attorney fees and costs incurred during the prosecution of this matter. On
July 26, 2011, Plaintiff's counsel filed an Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses
with evidence to support the reasonableness of the $8,000.00 in attorney fees and costs agreed to
by the parties.
The Court conducted a hearing on July 29, 2011. No one appeared at this hearing to
object to the proposed settlement. The Court has reviewed the parties’ Joint Motion, the Motion
for Attorney Fees and Expenses of Plaintiff's counsel, all exhibits thereto, and has considered the
evidence submitted to the Court by the parties prior to the hearing, and the evidence presented at
the hearing. For reasons stated on the record, the court found the settlement to be fair and
reasonable and orally approved the parties' agreement, as well as plaintiff's request for attorney
fees. The parties submitted a proposed order of approval for the court's signature on July 26,
2011.
The parties were instructed to submit a proposed judgment to the court following
defendant's final payment, at which time, a final judgment will be entered in this matter.
The Court now, being duly advised in the premises, GRANTS the parties' request for
final approval of the parties' Settlement Agreement and the Motion for Attorney Fees and
Expenses of Plaintiff's Counsel, and finds and ORDERS as follows:
1.
The Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over all potential collective
members and that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider and approve the parties'
Settlement Agreement.
2.
The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and further
expressly finds the settlement to be in the best interest of plaintiff Erica Percifield and the
individuals who have opted-in.
-2-
3.
The Court further finds that Plaintiff's counsel and plaintiff have adequately
represented the potential collective members for purposes of entering into and implementing the
parties' settlement and Settlement Agreement.
4.
The Court finds that $8,000.00 in attorney fees and costs is a reasonable amount
for the work performed, and to be performed, by the office of Plaintiff's counsel in the
prosecution and winding-up of the settlement in this matter.
5.
Accordingly, the Court approves the settlement and Settlement Agreement and
directs the parties to implement it as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall mail within twenty-one (21) days of
the entry of this Order the agreed upon settlement funds minus normal withholdings for Erica
Percifield, Charlene Evans, Carrolle Banks, Brittany Garrod,
Brenda
Barnett,
Donna
Genrich, Shelia Brown, Sandra King, Kimberlee Brune, Christa Scott, Khrystyna Byrd, Sherry
Smith, and Brandy Stapp to counsel for Plaintiff.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Defendant shall mail within twenty-one (21) days of the
entry of this Order the agreed upon settlement funds for Erica Percifield to counsel for Plaintiff.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff shall mail the checks to the opt-in
plaintiffs within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Defendant shall mail within twenty-one (21) days of the
entry of this Order Eight Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($8,000.00) for the approved attorney
fees and costs to counsel for Plaintiff.
-3-
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the parties shall notify the Court when all settlement funds
have been paid in full. At that time, the Court will enter an Order of Final Judgment dismissing
this matter in its entirety with prejudice.
Dated:
07/29/2011
_______________________________
Judge, United States District Court
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distributed via e-mail:
Michael J. Cork - mcork@bamberger.com
Ronald E. Weldy - weldy@weldylaw.com
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?