Maloney v. Watermark Contractors Inc. et al, No. 7:2021cv05727 - Document 40 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING: (1) FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL; (2) APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND REINBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES; AND (3) PLAINTIFF'S SERVICE AWARD in favor of Elizabeth Maloney against Watermark Contractors Inc., Hugh Harris, Kevi n Maher. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement, the Parties' briefs, declarations, and oral arguments in support thereof, and the proceedings in this action to date, as follows: 1. Except as otherw ise specified herein, the Court for purposes of this Order adopts all defined terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, all matters relating thereto and all the Parties. 3. I f, for any reason, the Settlement Agreement ultimately does not become effective, the Parties shall return to their respective positions in the Litigation as those positions existed immediately before the Parties executed the Settlement Agreement, an d nothing stated in the Settlement Agreement or any other papers filed with this Court in connection with the Settlement shall be deemed an admission of any kind by any of the Parties or used as evidence against, or over the objection of, any of the Parties for any purpose in the Litigation or any other action. 4. The Notice disseminated to Class Members pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, was accomplished in all material r espects, and fully meets the requirements of Federal Rule 23. 5. Pursuant to Federal Rule 23, the Court grants final certification of the Class because it meets all of the requirements of Federal Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). 6. Pursuant to Federal Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the Settlement. The Court find that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects and that it is binding on all Class Members and that no Class Member requested to opt out or object pursuan t to the procedures set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Court finds that the Settlement is rationally related to the strength of Plaintiff's claims given the risk, expense, complexity, and duration of further litigation. The Court a lso finds that the Settlement Agreement is the result of arms-length negotiations between experienced counsel representing the interests of Plaintiff, Class Members, and the Settling Entities, after thorough factual and legal investigation. See Wal-M art Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 117 (2d Cir. 2005). 7. The Court further finds that the Settlement is adequate given: (i) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the Litigation; (ii) the reaction of Class Members to the Se ttlement, including the lack of any opt-outs or objections to the Settlement; (iii) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (iv) the risks of establishing liability and damages; (v) the risks of maintaining the class actio n through the trial; and (vi) that the Gross Settlement Amount is within the range of reasonableness in light of the best possible recovery and the attendant risks of litigation. See D'Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 86 (2d Cir. 2001); City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974). 8. The Court finds that the proposed plan of allocation is rationally related to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the respective claims asserted. The mechanisms and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement by which payments are to be calculated and made to Class Members are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and payment shall be made according to those allocations and pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Settle ment Agreement. 9. The Court has reviewed the Releases described in Section 2.11 of the Settlement Agreement and finds them to be fair, reasonable, and enforceable under the FLSA, Federal Rule 23, and all applicable law. 10. The Court hereby grant s Class Counsel attorneys' fees of $166,666.66 or 1/3 of the Gross Settlement Amount, which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable based upon: (i) the number of hours worked by Class Counsel during the Litigation; (ii) the results achiev ed on behalf of the Classes; (iii) the contingent nature of Class Counsel's representation; (iv) the complexity of the issues raised by the Litigation; (v) the absence of any objections to the request for attorneys' fees; and (vi) a lodesta r cross-check, which reveals that Class Counsel will receive a modest multiple to their lodestar expended during the Litigation. 11. The Court hereby approves Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of litigation expenses in the sum of $ 11,491.66, which expenses the Court finds were necessarily and reasonably incurred by Class Counsel in prosecuting this case and separately awards costs to Arden Claims Service, LLC for claims administration services in the amount of $12,500, bo th to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount. 12. The Court hereby approves service awards of $10,000 for the Named Plaintiff based upon the time, effort and commitment she expended in prosecuting the case on behalf of the Class. 13. The De fendants have complied with the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. paragraph 1711 et seq. 14. The Complaint filed in this Litigation and all claims contained therein are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice and wi thout costs as to all Class Members other than those who have opted-out of the Settlement. 15. By operation of the entry of this Order and the Final Judgment, all Released Claims are fully, finally and forever released, relinquished and discharged p ursuant to the terms of the release set forth in Section 2.11 of the Settlement Agreement as to all Class Members other than those who have opted-out of the Settlement. 16. The Parties have entered into the Settlement Agreement solely for the purpos e of compromising and settling disputed claims. The Settling Entities in no way admit any violation of law or any liability whatsoever to Plaintiff and the Class, individually or collectively, all such liability being expressly denied by the Settling Entities. 17. The Order and Final Judgment is a final judgment in the Litigation as to all claims among the Plaintiff, the Class Members who have not opted-out, and the Settling Entities. This Court finds, for purposes of Federal Rule 54(b), that t here is no reason for delay and expressly directs entry of Judgment as set forth herein. 18. This Order is contingent upon the Court's receipt of confirmation from counsel that any notice required by 28 U.S.C. paragraph 1715 has been served upo n appropriate Federal and State official(s). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1715(d) and pending such confirmation, this Order will become effective 90 days after the date on which the appropriate Federal and State official(s) were served notice. 19. The Cour t retains jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of resolving issues relating to administration, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. IT IS SO ORDERED. Clerk of Court is requested to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 31 and 33. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 5/24/2022) (ate)