Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Mashel Law
-
Order | Filed: May 09, 2024 | Entered: May 09, 2024 MILLER v. BRICK TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION et al
Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act | New Jersey
Order
TEXT ORDER: The Initial conference scheduled for 5/13/2024 at 3:00pm will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams; dial-in information will be provided to counsel. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge J. Brendan Day on 5/9/2024. (cry)
-
Misc | Filed: May 08, 2024 | Entered: May 08, 2024 MILLER v. BRICK TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION et al
Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act | New Jersey
Letter
Letter from Sanmathi Dev, Esq.. (DEV, SANMATHI)
-
Order | Filed: April 14, 2021 | Entered: April 14, 2021 SPACK v. TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT et al
Labor: Fair Standards | New York Northern
Order on Motion to Certify Class Order on Motion for Attorney Fees
ORDER granting 217 Motion to Certify Class; granting 226 Motion to Certify Class; granting 227 Motion for Attorney Fees. ORDERED, on this 14th day of April, 2021, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval, the Notion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards, it is: ORDERED, except as otherwise specified herein, the Court for purposes of this Order adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Agreement; ORDERED, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and all matters relating thereto, and over all Parties; ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 23, the Court confirms as final its certification of the Class for settlement purposes based on its findings in the Preliminary Approval Order and in the absence of any objections from Class Members to such certification; ORDERED, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), the Court approves the FLSA Settlement and certifies the collective class under the FLSA; ORDERED, the Court confirms as final the appointment of Plaintiffs Carol Spack, Tabitha Schmidt, and Natasha Roper as representatives of the Class, both under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); ORDERED, the Court likewise confirms as final the appointment of Mashel Law, L.L.C. as Class Counsel for the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and for individuals who opted into the Litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); ORDERED, the Court finds the requirements of the Class Action Fairness, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715 (CAFA), have been satisfied. The Court finds the requirements of CAFA have been satisfied, and this Order granting final approval of the settlement is now appropriate; ORDERED, the Court finds that the notice distributed to class and collective members (the "Class/Collective Notice") pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, was accomplished in all material respects, and fully met the requirements of Rule 23, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and due process; ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 23(e), this Court hereby grants the Motion for Final Approval and finally approves the settlement as set forth therein. The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate in all respects ad that it is binding on Class Members who did not timely opt out pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Court specifically finds that the settlement is rationally related to the strength of Plaintiffs' claims given the risk, expense, complexity, and duration of further litigation. ORDERED, the Court finds that the proposed settlement is procedurally fair because it was reached through vigorous, arm's length negotiations and after experienced counsel had evaluated the merits of Plaintiffs' claims through factual and legal investigation. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 117 (2d Cir. 2005); ORDERED, the Court finds the settlement is also substantively fair. All the factors set forth in Grinnell, which provides the analytical framework for evaluating the substantive fairness of a class action settlement, weight in favor of final approval. City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974). Therefore, the Court finds that the settlement is adequate given: (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (3) the risks of establishing liability and damages; (4) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (5) the lack of any objections; 96) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; and (7) that the Total Settlement Amount is within the range of reasonableness in light of the best possible recovery and the attendant risks of litigation. Grinnell, 495 F.2d at 463; ORDERED, the Court finds that the class' reaction to the settlement was positive, as no Class Member objected to the settlement; ORDERED, the Court finds that the proposed plan of allocation is rationally to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the respective claims asserted. The mechanisms and procedures set forth in the Agreement by which payments are to be calculated and made to Class Members who did not timely opt out are fair, reasonable and adequate, and payment shall be made according to those allocations and pursuant to the procedures as set forth in the Agreement; ORDERED, the Court hereby grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and awards Class C... (truncated)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login