Stoudemire v. Lee Enterprises, Inc., 3:22-cv-00086

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Lee Enterprises, Inc. for alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).
The Court denied a Motion to Dismiss and the parties proceeded with discovery and settlement negotiations, ultimately agreeing to class-wide settlement terms.
The Court preliminarily approved class certification and settlement, then provided notice to nearly 100% of class members.
Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the settlement, attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and service awards.
Over 30,000 class member claims were submitted, and no member objected to the settlement.
The settlement included a multimillion-dollar fund, attorney fees, expenses, and service awards for named plaintiffs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether settlement is fair/adequate	Settlement provides meaningful relief, arm’s length, no conflicts	Settlement justified due to VPPA’s scope and settlement provides certainty	Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate
Adequacy of attorney’s fee request	One-third of fund is reasonable and matches similar awards; 1,500 hours spent	Fee is high but within range; case's complexity justifies it	Fee award of one-third of fund granted
Approval of expense reimbursement	Reimbursement for actual out-of-pocket expenses is appropriate	None specific	$41,559.88 in expenses approved
Service awards to named plaintiffs	$2,500 reasonable due to plaintiffs’ efforts for class	None specific	$2,500 per plaintiff awarded

In re Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings Prods. Liab. Litig., 716 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2013) (settlement agreement is presumptively valid and sets standard for class settlement approval)
Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) (affirmed settlement presumption)
Marshall v. Nat’l Football League, 787 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 2015) (identified key factors for class settlement fairness review)
Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2017) (addressed need to review for collusion in class settlements)
In re Xcel Energy, Inc., Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 364 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Minn. 2005) (discussed customary attorney fee ranges in common-fund class settlements)
In re U.S. Bancorp Litig., 291 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2002) (affirmed class action fee award as within reasonable range)
Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999) (endorsed use of lodestar crosscheck on percentage fund fee awards)
Zoll v. E. Allamakee Cmty. Sch. Dist., 588 F.2d 246 (8th Cir. 1978) (approved Johnson factors for fee awards)
Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (emphasized balancing plaintiff's case strength vs. settlement terms)