Moore v. Aerotek, Inc., 2:15-cv-02701

Background

Two consolidated class actions (Moore and Rubio-Delgado) sued Aerotek under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), alleging Aerotek obtained consumer/background reports without providing a standalone disclosure and failed to provide pre-adverse action notices in some cases.
Rubio-Delgado filed in N.D. Cal. in 2013; Moore filed in Ohio state court in 2015; both matters were stayed and later consolidated in S.D. Ohio to pursue a global settlement.
After document exchange and two mediations (April and May 2016) the parties executed a Settlement Agreement creating a $15,000,000 common fund (plus non-monetary relief) to resolve class claims.
Class allocation: 1681b(b)(2) class (1 share), 1681b(b)(2) adjudicated class (1.67 shares), 1681b(b)(3) class (6 shares); uncashed funds to be redistributed then cy pres to National Consumer Law Center.
Notice produced a very small opt-out rate (72 of ~588,000) and one unrelated objection; 110 class-member classification challenges were adjusted.
Magistrate Judge found the settlement procedurally fair, reasonable, and adequate and recommended approval of: the $15,000,000 settlement; attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $5,069,964.27 (one-third of fund plus costs); class representative service awards; and administrator fees up to $856,849.87.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)	Settlement provides substantial monetary and non-monetary relief, negotiated at arms-length after investigation and mediation; low opt-outs/objections support approval	Aerotek does not object to fairness; denies liability but consents to settlement to avoid protracted litigation	Court recommended final approval — all Rule 23(e) factors (fraud/collusion, complexity, discovery, merits, counsel opinion, class reaction, public interest) weigh in favor of approval
Whether $5,000,000 (one-third of fund) in attorneys’ fees is reasonable	Fee is within customary contingency range; lodestar cross-check supports reasonableness given time, risk, result, skill, and contingent representation	Implicit: Aerotek did not oppose fee request; no argument contesting percentage method	Court approved percentage-of-fund methodology and one-third fee as reasonable after considering benefit to class, lodestar, contingency risk, societal interest, complexity, and counsel skill
Whether requested costs, administration fees, and service awards are reasonable	Counsel sought reimbursement of ~$67,964.27 costs, admin fees up to $856,849.87, and named-plaintiff awards ($5,000, $5,000, $3,000, $3,000) as customary and disclosed	Aerotek did not object; no competing proposals	Court recommended approval of costs, administrator fees not to exceed amount requested, and the named-plaintiff service awards as reasonable
Allocation plan among subclass categories and cy pres distribution	Pro rata distributions by class/share reflect differing harms; leftover funds to be redistributed to worst-injured subclass then cy pres to National Consumer Law Center	Aerotek agreed to the allocation structure and non-monetary remedies; no objection to allocation	Court found allocation and redistribution/cy pres provisions reasonable and approved them

Key Cases Cited

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (addressing standing and statutory injury issues relevant to class claims)
Smith v. LexisNexis Screening Solutions, Inc., 837 F.3d 604 (6th Cir. 2016) (discussing willfulness standard under the FCRA)
Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc., 102 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 1996) (factors for evaluating attorneys’ fee awards)
Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc., 9 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 1993) (approving percentage-of-the-fund method and discussing advantages)
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (U.S. 1985) (importance of class actions to vindicate claims of many small-claim plaintiffs)
In re Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 137 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (noting complexity of class actions and public interest in settlements)