SCHNEIDER et al v. UNION HOSPITAL, INC.

Filing 126

ORDER for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson: The Court held a Fairness Hearing in this matter and a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Counsel's Attorney's Fees, [Filing No. 122], on May 8, 2017. Plaintiffs Amy Schneider, Janet Breneman, and Sarah Geraci were present by counsel Robert Kondras, Jr.. Defendant Union Hospital, Inc. ("Union") was present by counsel Dana Stutzman and Nicholas Johnston, and corporate repres entative Sally Zuel. The court reporter was Jean Knepley. In sum, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Counsel's Attorney's Fees, [Filing No. 122 ], and gives FINAL APPROVAL of the Parties' Settlem ent Agreement as a fair and reasonable compromise of a bona fide dispute. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without fees, costs or disbursements to any party, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement as to Plaintiffs' couns el's fees and costs. Final judgment shall enter accordingly. Payment under the Settlement Agreement shall commence no sooner than thirty days from the expiration of the date by which the final judgment must be appealed (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/9/2017. (Court Reporter Jean Knepley.)(DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
AMY L. SCHNEIDER and JANET E. BRENEMAN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNION HOSPITAL, INC.,
Defendant.

SARAH J. GERACI, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNION HOSPITAL, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:15-cv-00204-JMS-DKL

No. 2:16-cv-00207-JMS-DKL

ORDER
The Court held a Fairness Hearing in this matter and a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Final Approval of Class Counsel’s Attorney’s Fees, [Filing No. 122], on May 8, 2017. 1 Plaintiffs
Amy Schneider, Janet Breneman, and Sarah Geraci were present by counsel Robert Kondras, Jr.

1

The settlement in this matter applies to two cases: Schneider, et al. v. Union Hospital, Inc., 2:15cv-00204-JMS-DKL, and Geraci v. Union Hospital, Inc., 2:16-cv-00207-JMS-DKL. The Court
consolidated the two cases for settlement purposes on December 19, 2016. [Filing No. 114.]
Accordingly, although there are technically two cases, the Court refers to them collectively for
simplicity. The docket cites in this Order, however, reference the Schneider case.
1

Defendant Union Hospital, Inc. (“Union”) was present by counsel Dana Stutzman and Nicholas
Johnston, and corporate representative Sally Zuel. The court reporter was Jean Knepley.
The settlement in this matter encompassed claims brought by a collective action class under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and by a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class under the Indiana wage
Payment Act (“IWPA”).

The parties presented argument regarding final approval of the

settlement, including the number of class members who submitted claim forms, details regarding
the payments that will be made to members of the collective action and the class action, and the
amount of attorneys’ fees and costs sought by Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a
Plan of Allocation, which the Court made part of the record as Exhibit 1. Counsel advised that no
individuals filed objections to the settlement, and none were received directly by the Court.
Plaintiffs’ counsel also submitted invoices reflecting his work in connection with this matter. [See
Filing No. 122-5; Filing No. 122-6.] Plaintiffs’ counsel orally moved for final approval of the
Settlement Agreement. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Final Approval of Class Counsel’s Attorney’s Fees, [Filing No. 122], and GRANTS Plaintiffs’
oral Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement.
FLSA collective action settlement agreements must be approved by the Court. 29 U.S.C.
§ 216(b)-(c); see also Walton v. United Consumers Club, Inc., 786 F.2d 303, 306 (7th Cir. 1986).
“Normally, a settlement is approved where it is the result of ‘contentious arm’s length negotiations,
which are undertaken in good faith by counsel…and serious questions of law and fact exist such
that the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of further relief after
protracted and expensive litigation.’” Burkholder v. City of Ft. Wayne, 750 F.Supp.2d 990, 995
(N.D. Ind. 2010).

The Court must consider “whether the agreement reflects a reasonable

2

compromise of disputed issues rather than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an
employer’s overreaching.” Id. The following factors should be considered:
(1) The complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction
of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceeding and the amount of
discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of
establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial;
(7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a larger judgment; (8) the range of
reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; and (9)
the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of all the risks of
litigation.
Id.
Settlement of class claims brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 may be approved if the Court
finds the settlement to be “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). The Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals has characterized the Court’s role as that of a fiduciary to the class
members in considering whether a settlement is fair and reasonable. Wong v. Accretive Health,
Inc., 773 F.3d 859, 862 (7th Cir. 2014).
After reviewing the Settlement Agreement and the Plan of Allocation, and considering the
information presented by counsel at the hearing, the Court finds the settlement in this matter was
reached in good faith and at arm’s length, and is a reasonable compromise of the vigorously
disputed issues in this case. Along with findings made on the record, the Court notes the following:
•

Plaintiffs’ counsel was diligent, and used all reasonable efforts, in attempting
to locate class members;

•

The response rate to the notices that were sent to the FLSA collective action
members and the Rule 23 class members indicates that the method of notice
was effective;

•

No individuals filed objections to the settlement;

•

The total settlement amount paid was the result of extensive negotiations
between the parties, and the average amount paid is just under 75% of the
maximum amount payable under the settlement agreement;

3

•

The fees and costs Plaintiffs’ counsel will receive under the Settlement
Agreement are consistent with the contract between Plaintiffs’ counsel and his
clients; and are fair and reasonable, based on the amount of work counsel
undertook in this litigation, a reasonable hourly rate, and the amount of fees and
costs actually incurred;

•

The parties have negotiated the amount of attorneys’ fees, so an effective
marketplace to determine the appropriate amount of fees was present here. See
McKinnie v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 678 F.Supp.2d 806, 814 (E.D. Wis.
2009) (“[a]n appropriate attorneys’ fee award is one that ‘re-creates’ the market
for the provided legal services”) (citing Montgomery v. Aetna Plywood, Inc.,
231 F.3d 399, 408 (7th Cir. 2000) (“where the district court is asked to award
reasonable attorneys’ fees or reasonable costs, the measure of what is
reasonable is what an attorney would receive from a paying client in a similar
case”)).

In sum, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Counsel’s
Attorney’s Fees, [Filing No. 122], and gives FINAL APPROVAL of the Parties’ Settlement
Agreement as a fair and reasonable compromise of a bona fide dispute.

This matter is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without fees, costs or disbursements to any party, except
as provided in the Settlement Agreement as to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees and costs. Final judgment
shall enter accordingly. Payment under the Settlement Agreement shall commence no sooner than
thirty days from the expiration of the date by which the final judgment must be appealed.

Date: May 9, 2017

Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record

4