Crumbaker v. Parking Solutions, Inc. et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT re 45 MOTION for Settlement Approval: Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS fully and finally approving the Settlement Agreement, finally certifying for settlement purposes the settlement clas s under the FLSA and Ohio law, finally approving the form, content, and distribution of the class notice and claim form, approving the service award to Plaintiff, approving Class Counsel's request for fees and costs, and DISMISSING the litigation with prejudice upon completion of administration. Objections to R&R due by 9/12/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 8/29/2017. (ew)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Civil Action 2:15-cv-2446
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Jolson
PARKING SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
PROPOSED FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Chad Crumbaker has moved this Court to grant final approval of the
proposed class and collective action settlement and enter final judgment in this action. (Doc.
45). In its Order granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement (Doc. 39), the Court certified
classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes. (Doc. 39 at 2). The Court
also certified the proposed classes, for settlement purposes, as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards. (Id.). Notice was given to members of the Settlement Class, and a
Fairness Hearing was held on August 28, 2017.
Upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Settlement (Doc. 45), the
accompanying exhibits, and the whole of the record, the Undersigned recommends finding
1. Final class certification is appropriate, class counsel is adequate, and Plaintiff
Crumbaker is an appropriate class representative.
2. The proposed settlement of the class members’ state-law claims is “fair,
reasonable, and adequate” to all participants and qualifies for approval
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
3. The settlement of the class members’ FLSA resolves a clear and actual dispute
resolved in an arm’s-length negotiation.
4. The service award of $4,000 to Plaintiff Crumbaker is reasonable.
5. The attorneys’ fees and expenses award of $111,105, which amounts to 21%
of the gross potential settlement value, is fair and reasonable.
6. The class notice was reasonable and appropriate.
Consequently, the Court RECOMMENDS fully and finally approving the Settlement
Agreement, finally certifying for settlement purposes the settlement class under the FLSA and
Ohio law, finally approving the form, content, and distribution of the class notice and claim
form, approving the service award to Plaintiff, approving Class Counsel’s request for fees and
costs, and DISMISSING the litigation with prejudice upon completion of administration.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s).
A judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). Failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the
right to have the district judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo, and also
operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report
and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152–53 (1985).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 29, 2017
/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?