Alvarez v. Keystone Plus Construction Corporation, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50303

Plaintiffs allege Keystone underpaid overtime on the LK Downing project (Jun 2012–Oct 2012) by crediting workers with “tools” instead of time-and-a-half.
The class is defined narrowly as all non-exempt LK Downing project workers who worked >40 hours in a workweek during the period, identified from Keystone records totaling 47 members.
Court previously granted preliminary and final approvals for a settlement and certified the class for settlement purposes only.
Settlement provides 1.37x the overtime shortfall to each class member, apportioned as half wages and half liquidated damages, plus $500 to each named plaintiff and $14,000 to Class Counsel.
The settlement notice informed members of their rights, opt-out options, and the amount due; checks are to be managed with cy pres if uncashed.
The Court conducted a fairness hearing and determined the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the class satisfies Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for settlement certification	Alvarez argues numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority.	Keystone contends the defined class is cohesive and common issues predominate, and settlement is superior.	Yes; the class satisfies Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for settlement purposes.
Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)	Settlement provides prompt relief and proportionate recovery considering risks of trial.	Settlement is fair given potential defenses and uncertainties of proving willfulness and damages.	Yes; the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Whether the attorney’s fees provision is fair and proper	Fees were integrated into the settlement and should reflect reasonable compensation.	Fees must be scrutinized to avoid reciprocal impact on class recovery.	Yes; the fee provision is fair and reasonable given hours, rates, and court-approved process.
Whether the process and notice to class satisfied due process	Notice was clear, comprehensive, and allowed opt-out/objection; notice was mailed to last known addresses.	Notice procedure was adequate to inform members and secure participation.	Yes; notice complied with due process and informed participation.

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (Sup. Ct. 1997) (settlement class certification requires careful balance of interests and final approval standards)
Cohen v. Chilcott, 522 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2007) (class certification and settlement considerations in the District of Columbia)
In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 305 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.D.C. 2004) (court’s review of reasonableness of settlements and attorney’s fees in complex actions)
In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 209 F.R.D. 251 (D.D.C. 2002) (predominance and superiority in class actions involving antitrust claims)
Pigford v. Glickman, 182 F.R.D. 341 (D.D.C. 1998) (class actions; framework for evaluating settlement fairness and adequacy)