Caballero et al v. Zaloumis Contracting Service, Inc. et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Fairness Hearing of February 19, 2013, the Final Order and Judgment signed by the Court February 20, 2013, and this Memorandum and Order constitute the Court's findings and rulings in this matter. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 2/20/2013) (ago)

f;::--··,

i,~

.1 USDC SDNY

DOCUMEi~l
I ELE:crnONlCALLY

/I

It

~~
A'~

It;~~#~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------X

CHRISTOPHER CABALLERO, JEREMY
CORTRIGHT, and CONROD LAIRD,
individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

11 Civ. 1121 (DAB)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

v.
ZALOUMIS CONTRACTING SERVICE, INC.,
d/b/a CONNECTONE and MATTHEW
ZALOUMIS,
Defendants.

------------------------------------x

DEBORAH A. BATTS, united States District Judge.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
On February 19, 2013, the Court held a Fairness Hearing to
consider the final certification of the Settlement Class, as well as
the substantive and procedural fairness of the terms of the settlement
on Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Approval of the Class and
Collective Action Settlement and Other Relief. As set out in the
Court's Final Order and Judgment, dated February~, 2013, the Court
finally certified the Settlement Class and approved the settlement in
full. At the hearing, the Court indicated that it would file this
Memorandum and Order, setting out the Court's rationale for final
certification of the Class and approval of the settlement.
On February 18, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Class and Collective
Action Complaint against Zaloumis Contracting Service, Inc., BR
Management, LLC, CBA Management, LLC, Connectone Communications Corp.,
1

Matthew Zaloumis, and Cablevision Systems Corp., alleging Defendants

violated the New York Labor Law (uNYLL") and fair Labor Stanaaraa Act
(UFLSA") by, among other things, failing to pay the legally required
amount of overtime.

(Pl. Mem. at 2-3.) On March 22, 2011, Plaintiffs

amended the Complaint to include allegations against CSC Holdings,
LLC, f/k/a CSC Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of Defendant Cablevision
Systems Corp.

(Pl. Mem. at 3.) Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint,

filed May 27, 2011, added Defendant Zaloumis Contracting Service,
Inc., d/b/a Connect/One, and dismissed Defendant Connectone
Communications Corp.

(Pl. Mem. at 3.) On September 22, 2011,

Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss Defendants Cablevision Systems Corp. and
CSC Holdings LLC, f/k/a CSC Holdings, Inc., and the Court ordered the
dismissal the following day.

(Pl. Mem. at 3.) Plaintiffs subsequently

agreed to dismiss Defendants BR Management, LLC and CBA Management,
LLC, and on January 9, 2012, the Court ordered the dismissal of these
Defendants.

(Pl. Mem. at 3.)

On September 10, 2012, the Court entered an Order preliminarily
approving the settlement, conditionally certifying the settlement
class, appointing Marc Hepworth, Hepworth, Gershbaum, & Roth, PLLC and
Fran Rudich, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP as Class Counsel, and
authorizing the dissemination of the proposed settlement notice. The
NYLL Class consists of cable installers/technicians who worked for
Defendants at any time from February 18, 2005 through March 1, 2012.
(Pl. Mem. at 5.) The FLSA Collective consists of cable
2

installers/technicians who worked for Defendants at any time from

F@bruarv 18. 2005 throuoh March 1. 2012 who nreviously submitted
consents to join or who endorse their settlement checks.

(Pl. Mem. at

5. )

Before the Court today is Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of the
Class and Collective Action Settlement and Other Relief, including
applications for an award of Class Counsel's attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of Class Counsel's expenses, and approval of requested
incentive awards to five Class Representatives. Defendants do not
oppose Plaintiffs' motion.
The response to the settlement has been extremely positive. After
the Claims Administrator sent out 282 notices, no class member timely
submitted objections or sought to opt out of the settlement.

(Pl. Mem.

at 1-2.)
The Settlement Agreement creates a common fund of $205,000.00,
which resolves all claims for (1) alleged unpaid wages, overtime,
piecework premium pay, interest, liquidated damages;

(2) attorneys'

fees and litigation costs and expenses, including costs incurred for
preparing and maintaining the Notices of Settlement to Class Members,
retaining a Claims Administrator, and all other expenses relating to
Class Counsel's application for approval of the Settlement; and (3)
incentive awards of $2,500 each to five Class Representatives.

(Pl.

Mem. at 4.) Zaloumis Contracting Service, Inc. shall make three
payments into the fund.

(Settlement Agreement,
3

§

3.1(A)-(B).) The

Settlement Claims Administrator, RG/2 Claims, shall make three payments

FLSA

to the

Collective Members who endorse settlement checks, the NYLL

Class Members, and Class Counsel.

(Pl. Mem. at 6-7.) The FLSA

Collective and NYLL Class Members shall be paid pursuant to an
allocation formula that takes into account the number of weeks worked
during the class period, with an allocation of 50% to allegedly unpaid
wages and 50% to liquidated damages.

(Pl. Mem. at 6.) If any checks to

NYLL Class Members are not cashed within 90 days after they are mailed,
the Claims Administrator shall refund to Connect One the amount of such
checks.

(Pl. Mem. at 6.) All payments to Class Members, other than

Incentive Awards, shall be subject to applicable payroll and
withholding taxes, and Federal, State, and City wage garnishments.

(Pl.

Mem. at 5.) The employer's share of FICA shall also be paid out of the
Fund.

(Pl. Mem. at 5.)

CLASS CERTIFICATION
In order to certify the class as defined by Plaintiffs the Court will consider the criteria of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b).
I

EVIDENCE FROM
PLAINTIFFS'
SUBMISSION
The class is so numerous
PI. Mem. at 17. ["[A] class of
that joinder of all members is more than 40 people generally
i impracticable.
• satisfies the numerosity
requirement. Consol. Rail Corp.
v. Town of H~de Park, 47 F.3d
. 473,483 (2d Cit. 1995).
i Numerosity is satisfied here,
where the settlement class size
is 282."J

• COURT FINDING

LEGAL
REQUIREMENT(S)
SATISFIED
FRCP 23(a)(1)

4

~':~~"f+~~·lIlCl
.•.._ _ _ _ _ _ _......_ _ _ _......_ _ _ _ _ __
~'

-~

The Court finds that there
arequestions of law or fact
COITUTlon t o

thc claaa.

I

PI. Mem. at18. ["[T]he claims
of the Settlement Class

FRCP 23(a)(2)

lloprese<'1t!ttf'<J'<:l tin"! i'h&

members of the State Law Class
are predicated on the core
common issues as to whether
Connect One had a policy of
not paying Cable
Installers/Technicians for all
hours worked over 40 in a
workweek and whether
Connect One knew or should
have known that Class
Members were working 'off­
the-clock. "'J

The Court also finds that
under Rule 23(b)(3), these
questions of law or fact
common to the class
members predominate over
any questions affecting only
individual members, and
that a class action is superior
to other available methods
for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.

PI. Mem. at 21-22. ["All of
Plaintiffs' claims arise out of
Plaintiffs' contention that
Defendants had a policy of not
paying Class Members overtime
premium pay for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek
and are unified by a common
theory that this policy
violated the NlLL. ...
Plaintiffs maintain that for
settlement purposes these are
common operative facts and
common questions of law that
predominate over any factual
variations in the circumstances
of the Class members ....
Plaintiffs also believe that
superiority is met because this
settlement will 'conserve
judicial resources and is more
efficient for Class Members,
particularly those who lack
resources to bring their claims
i individually.' ... Here, the
. Plaintiffs and Class Members
and the class device is the
5

FRCP 23(b)(3)

practical way to resolve their
relatively small claims ....
l]j<'\1\lly, P11\i<'\tiJf~? t'Mttit'l<'\ til
that resolution of this litigation
by class settlement is superior
to the individual adjudication of
class members' claims for relief.
The Settlement provides the
Class with an ability to obtain
prompt, predictable and certain
relief, whereas individualized
litigation carries with it great
uncertainty, risk and costs, and
provides no guarantee that any
injured Settlement Class
Member will obtain necessary
and timely relief at the
conclusion of the litigation
process."]
The Court finds that the
claims or defenses of the
representative parties are
typical of the claims or
defenses of the class.

PI. Mem. at 19. ["Plaintiffs and
the Class all worked for
Connect One, were subject to
the same policies, and their
claims arise from Connect
One's alleged failure to pay all
overtime worked by the Class."]

FRCP 23(a)(3)

The Court finds that the
representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.

PI. Mem. at 19. ["Plaintiffs'
attorneys are experienced and
competent in complex litigation
and have an established track
record in wage and hour cases..
.. In turn, the Settlement Class
representatives, Christopher
Caballero, Jeremy Cortright,
Conrod Laird, Pedrito George
and Jason Turner, have no

FRCP 23(a)(4)
[Also satisfies Goldberger
Factor 4: The Quality of the
Representation, and second
half of Procedural Fairness
standard: Class Counsel's
Experience and Ability]

inte.rests that are antagonistic to

the Class and have
demonstrated their allegiance to
the Class throughout this
litigation_ They have provided a
great benefit to the Class
6
..........................

- - - - - - -.......

II

~---------~-

I ••.•

_..

... -.-.---.-..

---------­

-------~-----.-.

through their participation in
the investigation of this matter

I.. uud dur.i.ng the discovery

r-____________________~lLpr_o~c~e_ss_·~'l~______~-______~_________________________~
Having received no objections to the preliminary class certification, and finding all of
the criteria set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been satisfied, THE

CLASS CERTIFICATION IS HEREBY FINALLY CONFIRMED.
..

r------------~--- ~

..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­

FAIRNESS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), to grant final approval of a settlement, the Court
must determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. In making
this determination, the Court must review both the procedural and substantive fairness of a
proposed settlement. To find a settlement procedurally fair, the Court must pay close
attention to the negotiating process, to ensure that the settlement resulted from arm's-length
negotiations, and that Plaintiffs' Counsel possessed the experience and ability, and engaged
in the discovery necessary for effective representation of the class's interests. To find a
settlement substantively fair, the Court reviews the 9 Grinnell Factors. City of Detroit v.
Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448,463 (2d Cir. 1974).

r-C=-O=-U~R~=-T---:F=-IN-D-IN-G---'IEVIDENCE FROM SUBMISSION ----,--L-E-GAL

.=-=-:- --1

REQUIREMENT(S)
SATISFIED
---------1
PROCEDURAL
Arm's Length Negotiations and Class
D'Amato v. Deutsche
FAIRNESS
Bank, 236 F .3d 78,
Counsel's Experience and Ability
The settlement
PI. Mem. at 9, 19 ["Here, the settlement was 85 (2d Cir. 2001), citing
resulted from "arm's
Weinberger v. Kendrick,
reached through negotiations between each
698 F.2d 61, 74 (2d Cir.
length negotiations."
party's counsel, after the parties engaged in
Class Counsel
discovery and extensive investigation both
1982).
The procedural fairness
possessed the requisite into the merits of this case and that of
amount of experience
similar type of cases. The parties assessed the questions may also
satisfy (depending on
and ability, and the
strength of their claims and defenses and
the facts), Grinnell
parties engaged in the reached a settlement based on this
discovery necessary for information and arm's length negotiations.
Factor 3 (The Stage of
effective representation These negotiations, involving counsel well
the Proceedings and
Amount of Discovery
of the Class's interests. versed in wage and hour law, raise a
Completed) and
presumption that this settlement meets the
requirements of due process .... Plaintiffs'
Goldberger Factors 1
attorneys are experienced and competent in
(Time and Labor
, Expended by Counsel)
complex litigation and have an established
track record in wage and hour cases."]
I

I & 4 (Quality of the
7

I

Representation)]
~nU~TA1\ITTVU

Cth! of D~tMtt v.

FAIRNESS
Courts in this Circuit
review a proposed
settlement agreement
for substantive fairness
according to the 9
Grinnell Factors:

Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d
448,463 (2d Cir. 1974).

(1) Litigation is
complex, and would
likely be costly and
lengthy in duration.
The Court finds
Grinnell Factor 1 and
Goldberger Factor 2
satisfied on these facts.

Complexity, Expense and Likely
Duration
PI. Mem. at 10. ["By reaching a favorable
settlement prior to dispositive motions or
trial, Plaintiffs seek to avoid significant
expense and delay, and instead ensure
recovery for the class .... 'Most class actions
are inherently complex and settlement avoids
the costs, delays and multitude of other
problems associated with them.' ... In
complex wage and hour litigation, involving
both federal and state statutory rights,
protracted litigation is costly and
burdensome, including motion practice and
potential appeals over class certification ....
This case is no exception to these general
rules. Although there has been discovery,
(Gershbaum Dec. ~~ 12-14), additional
discovery would be required to establish
class and collective certification, followed by
Defendants' likely decertification motion(s),
as well as discovery on liability and damages
causing additional expense and delay."]

(2) The reaction of the
class to the settlement
has been positive.

Reaction of Class
PI. Mem. at 10-11. ["[O]ut of the 282 class
members, no Class Member has objected to
the Settlement and none have requested
exclusions. "]

(3) Proceedings have
Stage of Proceedings and Discovery.
progressed and
PI. Mem. at 11-12. ["Although preparing this
sufficient discovery has case through trial would require many more
8

Grinnell Factor 1: The
complexity, expense
and likely duration of
the litigation.
[Also satisfies
Goldberger Factor 2:
The magnitude and
complexities of the
li tigation.]

Grinnell Factor 2: The
reaction of the class to
the settlement.

Grinnell Factor 3: The
stage of the proceedings
and the amount of

been completed to
understand Plaintiffs'

hours of discovery, trial preparation, and
motion practice for both sides, the parties

-.;lalul..:> auJ nc~udat(,;

lLUY(;

c.o11.1.plotcJ

'Cn,'cr\,;l.51"l. X3CO"YOry

discovery completed.

to

settlement terms.

recommend settlement. ... [llhe discovery
here shows that the parties engaged in 'an
aggressive effort' to litigate this case.
The parties engaged in substantial
investigation and litigation before agreeing to
resolve this case. Plaintiff obtained,
reviewed, and analyzed thousands of pages
of hard-copy documents including, but not
limited to, Defendants' timekeeping
practices, payroll data, time records, wages
paid, and other relevant information before
agreeing to resolve this case. (Gershbaum
Dec. ~ 7). In addition, counsel had the
benefit of the very knowledgeable Plaintiffs',
which [sic] provided detailed information of
Defendants' practices."]

(4), (5), and (6) The
risks of litigation ­
including establishing
liability, establishing
damages, and
maintaining the class
action through trial ­
are significant.

Risks of Establishing Liability and
Damages (Grinnell Factors 4 & 5)
PI. Mem. at 13-14. ["Although Plaintiffs
believe their case is strong, it is subject to
non-negligible risks as to liability and
damages because 'the fact-intensive nature of
Plaintiffs' off-the-clock claim presents risk.' .
. . . Not only would Plaintiffs need to obtain
certification of both the FLSA and NYLL
classes but afterwards, would need to defeat
Defendants' likely motions for
decertification and summary judgment.
Finally, even if Plaintiffs defeated
decertification and survived summary
judgment, they would need to prevail at triaL
... A trial on the merits would involve
significant risks to Plaintiffs because of the
fact-intensive nature of proving liability

Grinnell Factor 4: The
risks of establishing
liability.
Grinnell Factor 5: The
risks of establishing
damages.

under the NYLL. In addition, in light of the

affirmative defenses available to Defendants,
such a trial would pose substantial risk as to
both liability and damages. While Plaintiffs
believe that their claims are meritorious,
their counsel are experienced and realistic,
9

I

and understand that the resolution of the
liability issues, the outcome of the trial, and
the inevitable appcab process arc ~he.rently

uncertain. '1
Grinnell Factor 6: The
Risks of Maintaining Class Action
risk of maintaining the
Through Trial.
PI. Mem. at 14. ["Although Plaintiffs believe class action through the
that they would obtain class certification, the trial. [The Court's
findings on Grinnell
Defendants can be expected to move to
decertify before trial, there by forcing another Factors 4, 5 and 6 also
satisfy Goldberger
round of briefing.... They may also seek
Factor 3: The risk of the
permission to ftle an interlocutory appeal
litigation]
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) .... Risk,
expense, and delay permeate such a
process.']
(7) Defendants' ability
to withstand a greater
judgment is not clear.

(8) and (9) The
settlement is
reasonable in light of:
(a) Plaintiffs' best
possible recovery, and
(b) the attendant risks
of litigation.

Defendants' Ability to Withstand Greater
Judgment.
PI. Mem. at 14-15. ["Connect One's ability
to withstand a greater judgment and its
financial stability is in serious doubt.
Connect One has claimed, which Plaintiffs
have confirmed, that it may not be able to
sustain a substantial verdict. Various issues
including the economy and other business
issues have caused complications that could
result in dissolution of the company. It is
doubtful that, absent this Settlement, the
Class Members would receive anything from
this case."]

Grinnell Factor 7: The
ability of the Defendant
to withstand greater
judgment.

Reasonableness of Settlement Fund in
Grinnell Factor 8: The
Light of Best Possible Recovery and
range of reasonableness
of the settlement fund in
Attendant Risks of Litigation
PI. Mem. at 15-16. ["In the light of the best
light of the best possible
possible recovery, and given the attendant
recovery.
risks of litigation and Defendants'
Grinnell Factor 9: The
insolvency, Defendants' agreement to settle
for a substantial amount, $205,000.00, is fair range of reasonableness
and reasonable .... Each eligible Class
. of the settlement fund to
Member will receive a payment based upon i a possible recovery in
his or her number of weeks of employment I light of all the attendant
I with Defendants.']
.
. . risks of litigation.
10

. Having considered the procedural and substantive factors, the Court find the proposed
~tt1ement to be fau, reasonable ano aoequate wIOer reOeral Ku1e u(Clvll Pro~c"urc

23 and THE SETTLEMENT IS HEREBY APPROVED.
.

FLSA SETTLEMENT

.

"Courts approve FLSA
settlements when they

are reached as a result

As the settlement was

of contested litigation to
the result of litigation

:
resolve bona fide

and arm's length
disputes." Dorn v.

negotiation, the Court

Eddington Sec., Inc.,

finds that the FLSA

No. 08 Civ. 10271,2011
settlement is fair and

WL 9380874, at *4

reasonable, and the
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21,

settlement is hereby

2011). "Typically, courts
approved.

regard the adversarial
nature of a litigated
FLSA case to be an
adequate indicator of
the fairness of the
settlement." Id.
(internal quotation
marks omitted). "If the
: proposed settlement
• reflects a reasonable
compromise over
contested issues, the
settlement should be
approved." Id.
The Marketplace is the
To ensure the
PI. Mem. at 22-23. [Class Counsel has
Guide:

appropriateness of
requested an award of attorneys' fees in the
"We have consistently
attorneys' fees and

amount of $67,650.00, which is 33% of the
looked to the

costs, the Court will
common fund of $205,000.00. Class counsel
now review the six

also seeks reimbursement for litigation costs marketplace as our

guide to what is

Goldberger criteria.

in the amount of $2,669.05. The 243.55
Goldberger v. Int.

hours spent on the litigation results in a total 'reasonable.'" Missouri
v. Jenkins b~ Agyei, 491
Resources, 209 F.3d 43, lodestar of $125,069.50.]
U.S. 274,285 (1989).
50 (2d Cir. 2000).
I

PI. Mem. at 2-4. [The settlement was the
result of litigation and arm's length
negotiation. During the litigation and
mediation, Plaintiffs and Defendants were
represented by counsel.]

ATTORNEYS' FEES
The Second Circuit

has recognized that a

!

11

district court may
calculate reasonable
t\H(\4'+,\~y f~~.:! by ~fth~4'

the lodestar method or
the percentage
method. Goldberger,
209 F.3d at 50.
The proposed
attorneys' fee,
calculated here
according to the
lodestar method, is
reasonable.
No matter which
method is chosen,
District Courts should
be guided by the six
traditional Goldberger
criteria in determining
a reasonable common
fund fee.
Goldberger v.
Integrated Resources,
Inc., 209 F.3d 43,
50 (2d Cir. 2000).
The six Goldberger
Factors are:
(1) Counsel has
expended considerable
time and labor on
behalf of Plaintiffs.

PI. Mem. at 23. ["[T]he Erms spent a total of
243.55 hours litigating and settling these
matters with a resulting total lodestar of
$125,069.50. Gershbaum Declaration ,-r 32.
The requested fee of $67,650.00 is far less
than the lodestar and results in a negative
multiplier of approximately .54."]

Goldberger Factor 1:
The requested fee in
relation to the
settlement.

(2) The litigation is
complex and of large
magnitude.

The Court's earlier Endings satisfying
Grinnell Factor 1 also satisfy Goldberger
Factor 2.

Goldberger Factor 2:
The magnitude and
complexities of the
litigation.

(3) The risks of
litigation for Plaintiffs
are substantial.

The Court's earlier Endings satisfying
Grinnell Factors 4, 5 & 6 also satisfy
Goldberg-er Factor 3.

Goldberger Factor 3:
The risk of litigation.

12
------------------------------------

~

~

'<'

,

J,,,

A:

~~-~--~~~---

(4) Representation of
class counsel is of high
quality.

PI. Mem. at 24. ["Class Counsel are
experienced lawyers in wage and hour

Goldberger Factor 4:
The quality of

litigation ttnJ have pru;jccutcJ large-acale

t'ept'e&crttnt~ort.

wage and hour collective and class actions.'l
The Court's earlier findings on counsel's
experience and ability, as well as discovery
and other labor expended in this matter, also
satisfy Goldberger Factor 4.

(5) The requested
attorneys' fees are
reasonable in relation
to Parties' settlement.

(6) Requested
attorneys' fees are not
contrary to public
policy.

ATTORNEYS'
EXPENSES
The Court finds that
expenses in this matter
are reasonable.

PI. Mem. at 24-25. ['Where counsel has

obtained a common fund settlement, courts
in the Second Circuit routinely award one­
third of the fund to Class Counsel. ... Here,
Class Counsel requests one-third of the
common fund after deduction of legal costs
which is in-line with the practice in this
Circuit."]
PI. Mem. at 24-25. [public policy favors a

common fund attorneys' fee award, because
fee awards encourage attorneys to provide
legal services to those with small wage claims
and discourage future misconduct. "This is
particularly true here where the value of each
individual claim is relatively small and the
cost to litigate would easily trump it."]
PI. Mem. at 25. ["Class Counsel's

unreimbursed expenses include filing fees,
mediation services, Claims Administrator
costs, transportation, meals, research,
Gershbaum Decl. ~ 27. These costs were
necessary and incidental to represent the
class."]

Goldberger Factor 5:
The requested fee in
relation to the
settlement.

Goldberger Factor 6:
Public policy
considerations.

"Attorneys may be
compensated for
reasonable out-of­
pocket expenses
incurred and
customarily charged to
their clients, as long as
they were 'incidental
and necessary to the
representation' of those
clients."
In re Independent

Energy Holdings PLC
Securities Litigation,
i 302 F. Supp. 2d 180,
I ~83 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
13

I

Having conducted the Goldberger analysis, the Court finds the requested attorneys'
fee~ of ;))67,650.00 to be rea~onab1c and the atLorney~' i'ee~ arc

IInnnBV APPltO'VEn.

Likewise, the Court finds attorneys' expenses of $2,669.05 to be reasonable and those
expenses are HEREBY APPROVED.
INCENTIVE
AWARDS
Requested Incentive
Awards are reasonable
and justified to
compensate Class
Representatives for the
services they provided
and the risks they
incurred during the
course of the class
action litigation.

PI. Mem. at 26-27. [plaintiffs move this
Court to approve incentive awards of
$2500.00 each to Class Representatives
Christopher Caballero, Jeremy Cortright,
Conrod Laird, Pedrito George, and Jason
Turner. These individuals "all provided
substantial support to this litigation.
Gershbaum Dec1. at ~ They aided Class
Counsel when investigating the cases and in
formulating responses to Interrogatories and
Document Requests. The Settlement Class
Representatives provided valuable
information about their experiences working
for Connect One, made themselves available
as needed, and stayed in touch with Class
Counsel throughout the litigation. See
Gershbaum Decl. at ~ 7.'1

CLAIMS
ADMINISTRATOR'S

FEE
The Court finds that
• the fee is reasonable in

PI. Mem. at 22-23. [The Parties seek the
Court's approval of the Claims
14

"Incentive awards are not
uncommon in class action
cases and are within the
discretion of the court.
Courts look for the
existence of 'special
circumstances' when
determining whether an
award is justified and, if
so, in what amount."
Factors to consider
include: "the personal risk
(if any) incurred by the
plaintiff-applicant in
becoming and continuing
as a litigant, the time and
effort expended by the
plaintiff in assisting in the
prosecution of the
litigation or in bringing to
bear added value (e.g.,
factual expertise), and
other burdens sustained
by the plaintiff in lending
himself or herself to the
prosecution of the claim,
and of course, the
ultimate recovery." In Re
AOL Time Warner
ERISA Litigation, 2007
WL 3145111 at *2
(S.D.N.Y.2007).

relation to the work
expended. The fee is
, hereby ~pproved_

Administrator's fee of $15,000.00.]

I

The Fairness Hearing of February 19, 2013, the Final Order
and Judgment signed by the Court February

dO ,

2013, and this

Memorandum and Order constitute the Court's findings and rulings
in this matter.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York

t1~<a

&i:&

Deborah A. Batts

United States District Judge

15