Park v. FDM Group Inc., 1:16-cv-01520

Background

This is a class and collective action by Grace Park and others against FDM Group, Inc., alleging wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and related state-law claims.
Parties executed a Settlement Agreement preliminarily approved on September 8, 2020; the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing on January 19, 2021.
Notice was distributed to the class; only three class members opted out and there were no objections. Nearly 99% of notified class members are participating.
The Court found the Settlement to be the product of arm’s-length negotiations and approved it as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and 29 U.S.C. § 216.
The Court awarded Class Counsel one-third of the Gross Settlement Fund ($1,378,333.33), approved service awards (ranging from $1,500 to $20,000), approved up to $120,000 for Class Counsel’s litigation expenses, and approved $25,188 for the claims administrator.
The action was dismissed with prejudice; participating class members released state-law claims and, upon cashing settlement checks, opted-in plaintiffs released federal-law claims. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate	Settlement resolves class and collective claims fairly; notice and procedures protect class interests	Supported/consented to settlement; no opposition	Approved: Court found Settlement fair, reasonable, adequate under Rule 23(e) and FLSA authority
Whether notice to class met legal standards	Notice fairly advised class of claims, rights, opt-out and objection procedures	Notice process was adequate; claims administrator used best practicable methods	Approved: Notice and distribution complied with Rule 23, FLSA, and Constitution
Whether attorneys’ fees (one-third of common fund) are justified	Percentage-of-recovery is appropriate; fees should be calculated on full common fund	Defendant did not oppose fee award	Awarded: Court granted $1,378,333.33 (1/3 of Gross Settlement Fund) as reasonable under Second Circuit precedent
Scope of releases and finality of judgment	Releases cover released state claims for participating members and both federal and state claims for those cashing checks; dismissal with prejudice is appropriate	Defendant sought final resolution and release of claims	Approved: Action dismissed with prejudice; releases enforced as defined in Settlement; Court retained jurisdiction to enforce settlement
Service awards and expense approvals	Service awards compensate named/representative plaintiffs for work and risk; litigation expenses and admin fees are reasonable	Defendant approved settlement terms including awards and expenses	Approved: Service awards granted as requested; up to $120,000 for Class Counsel expenses and $25,188 to claims administrator approved

Key Cases Cited

Masters v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., 473 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2007) (common-fund fees should be calculated on the total fund created by counsel’s efforts)
McDaniel v. County of Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2010) (endorsing percentage-of-recovery method in this Circuit)
Strougo ex rel. Brazilian Equity Fund, Inc. v. Bassini, 258 F. Supp. 2d 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (collecting cases supporting percentage-of-the-fund method)
In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 12 F.3d 3d 485 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (applying principle that percentage is applied to total common fund)
Alleyne v. Time Moving & Storage Inc., 264 F.R.D. 41 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (applying percentage-of-recovery in awarding fees)
In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, 187 F.R.D. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (discussing and applying percentage-of-recovery method)