Brown v. Rush Street Gaming, LLC et al, No. 1:2022cv00392 - Document 38 (N.D.N.Y 2023)

Court Description: ORDER Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement: that Brown's motion for final approval of the class action settlement (Dkt. No. 36 ) is Granted; that Brown's motion for attorney's fees and expenses and a service award (Dkt. No. 35 ) is Granted; that the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1367, including jurisdiction over all members of the Settlement Class certified on September 22, 2022; that the Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(3) for purposes of settlement of this litigation only; that the Court confirms the appointments of: (a) Named Plaintiff Kendra Brown a s Class Representative of the Settlement Class, and (b) the law firms of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, McClelland Law Firm P. C., and Getman, Sweeney & Dunn PLLC, as Class Counsel; that the Notice of Settlement sent to the Class Members via First Class Mail adequately informed the Class Members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, their estimated recovery if the Settlement was approved, the process available to obtain monetary relief, their right to request exclusion from the Class and pursue their own remedies, and their opportunity to file written objections and appear and be heard at the Final Approval Hearing; that the Notice of Settlement adequately informed the Class Members of the contact information for the Settlement Administrato r and Class Counsel; that the Notice of Settlement provided to the Class Members satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(e)(1)(B); that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2), the settlement memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, and f iled with the Court, is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members; that the Court finds that: (a)the strength of the Class Representative's and Class Members' claims weighed against the defenses of Defen dants and the complexity, length, and expense of further litigation, support approval of the Settlement; (b) the Maximum Settlement Amount of $5,500,000 as set forth in the Settlement Agreement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement of t he Named Plaintiff's individual claims and the claims of the Settlement Class; (c) the Settlement was reached pursuant to arm's-length negotiations between the parties overseen by a mediator; (d) the support for the Settlement expressed by Class Counsel and counsel for Settling Entities, who have significant experience representing parties in complex class actions, including those involving wage and hour claims, weighs in favor of approval of the Settlement; (e) the absence of any obj ections to the Settlement by Class Members supports approval of the Settlement; and (f) the parties had sufficient information such that the Court and the parties could evaluate the merits of the case, potential damages, and the probable course of f uture litigation; that the Court finds the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); that the Court finds that the resolution of the Fair Labor Standards Act claims represents a fair and reasonable resolut ion of a bona fide dispute; that the Settlement Administration Costs of $20,622 are approved and shall be paid to the Settlement Administrator from the Qualified Settlement Fund according to the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement; that the Service Payment, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, is approved and shall be awarded and paid to Named Plaintiff from the Qualified Settlement Fund according to the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement; that Class Counse l is awarded one-third of the settlement fund ($1,833,150) for attorneys' fees and $33,542.59 for costs and expenses and will receive such payment from the Qualified Settlement Fund according to the procedures set forth in the Settleme nt Agreement; that Class Members shall receive their settlement shares according to the allocation formula and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement; that any Class Member who did not timely request exclusion from the Settlement Agreement is bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and fully releases and discharges the Released State Claims; that any Class Member who negotiates his or her Settlement Check is bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement and fully releases and discharges the Released Federal Claims upon such negotiation of his or her Settlement Check; that as identified by the Settlement Administrator in Exhibit B to the Declaration of Richard W. Simmons filed in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Fina l Approval of the Class Action Settlement (Dkt. No. 36-4), the Court finds that one individual, Tammy L. McKinney, has timely requested exclusion from the Settlement Class. As a result, Tammy L. McKinney is: (a) excluded from the Settlement Class pr eviously certified; (b) is not bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (c) does not release or discharge the Released Class Claims; and (d) is not entitled to participate in the Settlement; that the notices to government officials of this set tlement have been transmitted as required under the Class Action Fairness Act; that Final approval of the Settlement is Granted; and that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, without costs to any of the parties except as provided in the Settlement Agreement; and that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly, terminate the pending motions, and close the file. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 01/19/2023. (hmr)