Velez Pacheco v. Vantage Foods, Inc.
Filing
49
ORDER re: pltf's motion for final app of class action settlement 45 - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Settlement of action APPROVED pursuant to FLSA & FRCP 23(e)..; 2. W/ re: $210K payable to class membert ct finds following 8 factors... w eigh in favor of approval... (see Para 2 for specifics).; 3. Ct also approves req'd svc award of $2,500 to named pltf Pacheco...; 4.Ct also approves pursuant to FRCP 23(h) req'd pymt of $107,500 to class cnsl for atty's fees & exps...; 5. Ct also certifies case as collective-action under FLSA, 29 USC 201 et seq...; 6. Action DISMISSED w/ prejudice w/ ct retaining jurisdiction over...settlement agreement & this order. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/11/16. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LEANNISH VELEZ PACHECO,
v.
Plaintiff
VANTAGE FOODS, INC.,
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-1127
(Chief Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of February, 2016, upon consideration of named
plaintiff Leannish Velez Pacheco’s unopposed motion (Doc. 45) for final approval of
class action settlement, requested attorney’s fees and costs, and requested service
award, the accompanying memorandum (Doc. 46) of law, the “Class Action
Settlement Agreement and Release,” (Doc. 35-1), the Declaration of Josephine
Bravata, (Doc. 45-1), the Declaration of Peter Winebrake, (Doc. 45-2), the
Declaration of Eric Young, (Doc. 45-3), the representations of class counsel during
the February 11, 2016 fairness hearing, and all other papers and proceedings
herein, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The settlement of this action is APPROVED pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).1 29 U.S.C. § 201
et seq.; FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e).
The settlement does not apply to or bind Sarai Martinez Ruiz, Wasim Nadir,
Pedro Santiago, Sandra Valencia Daza, and Paul G. Scozzaro, each of whom have
excluded themselves from the settlement. (See Doc. 45-1).
1
2.
With respect the $210,000.00 payable to the class members, the court
finds that the following eight factors, as described in Girsh v. Jepson,
521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975), weigh in favor of approval: (a) the
complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (b) the
reaction of the class to the settlement; (c) the stage of the proceeding
and the amount of the discovery completed; (d) the risks of
establishing liability; (e) the risks of establishing damages; (f) the risks
of maintaining the class action through trial; (g) the range of
reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible
recovery; and (h) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to
a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation.
3.
The court also approves the requested service award of $2,500.00 to
named plaintiff Leannish Velez Pacheco in recognition of her role in
initiating this lawsuit and diligently pursuing her legal claims on
behalf of the class. This award falls within the range of service awards
approved in other wage/overtime class action lawsuits. See, e.g., Creed
v. Benco Dental Supply Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132911, at *19-20
(M.D. Pa. Sept. 17, 2013) (approving $15,000.00 award); Craig v. Rite
Aid Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2658, at *49-50 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2013)
(approving awards of $7,500.00 and $5,000.00 and citing authority).
4.
The court also approves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(h), the requested payment of $107,500.00 to class counsel for
attorney’s fees and expenses. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(h). The court finds the
$24,738.19 in expenses to be reasonable and necessary under the
circumstances of this litigation and settlement. Moreover, the
requested $82,761.81 attorney’s fee recovery, which constitutes
approximately 26% of the total $320,000.00 settlement fund and is less
than the fee lodestar submitted by class counsel, (see Docs. 45-2, 45-3),
is supported by the seven factors described in Gunter v. Ridgewood
Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190, 193 n.1 (3d Cir. 2000): (a) the size of the
fund created and the number of persons benefited; (b) the absence of
objections by members of the class; (c) the skill and efficiency of the
attorneys involved; (d) the complexity and duration of the litigation; (e)
the risk of nonpayment; (f) the amount of time devoted to the case by
plaintiff’s counsel; and (g) awards in similar cases.
2
5.
The court also certifies the above-captioned case as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The court
concludes that plaintiffs are similarly situated, based upon the
representations of counsel placed on the record during the November
24, 2015 preliminary approval hearing, (see Doc. 42), and the February
11, 2016 final fairness hearing, (see Doc. 48), and the findings set forth
in the court’s class certification order (Doc. 44), dated December 4,
2015.
6.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice, although the court will
retain jurisdiction over the interpretation, enforcement, and
implementation of the settlement agreement and this order.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?