Fenley v. Wood Group Mustang, Inc.

Filing 175

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS GRANTING 173 Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Objections to R&R due by 7/24/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 7/10/2019. (ew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TOMMY L. FENLEY, WILLIAM PEVETO, :
BROCKROBERT TAGAROOK and LEWIS :
WHITMIRE, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated,
:

Plaintiffs,
v.
WOOD GROUP MUSTANG, INC.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 2:15-cv-326
COLLECTIVE & CLASS ACTION

DISTRICT JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On July10, 2019, a hearing was held before the Undersigned, and upon consideration of
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Approval of
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, the Court RECOMMENDS GRANTING Plaintiffs’ Motion and
further RECOMENDS as follows:
1.

The Parties’ Settlement Agreement is finally approved as fair, reasonable, and

adequate pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e), and a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide
dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act;
2.

For settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class is finally certified

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b): All Plaintiffs, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the
certified State Law Classes1;

1

The State Law Classes means the group certified by the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on
March 30, 2018 (Doc. 126), which includes all current and former employees of Wood Group
Mustang, Inc. who were classified with the pay code “DAY – Non Exempt Day Rate,” and who
worked in WGM’s Pipeline Services Inspection Department as an inspector (or an equivalent
position) in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and/or Illinois in any workweek during applicable Class Periods.

3.

Plaintiffs Tommy L. Fenley, William Peveto, Brockrobert Tagarook, and Lewis

Whitmire are approved as the Representatives of the Settlement Class;
4.

Berger Montague PC is approved as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class;

5.

Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,083,333.33 and costs not to exceed $195,000.00

are approved;
6.

RG2 Claims Administration LLC is approved as the Settlement Administrator, and

the costs of claims administration not to exceed $23,000 are approved;
7.

The Court finds that dissemination of the Settlement Notice was accomplished as

directed, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and met the requirements
of due process;
8.

The Court directs the settlement funds be distributed in accordance with the terms

of the Settlement Agreement;
9.

The Court hereby enters final judgment in this case and dismisses it with prejudice

in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. There being no reason to delay entry
of this Final Judgment, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to enter this Final Judgment forthwith
pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
10.

Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment in any way, the Court reserves

exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over this action, the Named Plaintiffs, the certified
Settlement Class, and Defendant for purposes of supervising the implementation and enforcement
of the Settlement Agreement, this Order, and all settlement administration matters.
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that party
may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and
Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in
question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
2

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation
will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal
the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir.
1987); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 10, 2019

/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3