United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Kou Thao Vang and Dao Vang, on behalf of themselves, others similarly situated, and the proposed Rule 23 Class, Plaintiffs,
KeyTronicEMS and CDR Manufacturing, Inc., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF COLLECTIVE AND CLASS
Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on the Parties' joint motion
for final approval of their collective and class action
settlement and Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
attorneys' fees and costs. (Dkt. 31.) On May 8, 2019, the
Court held a Fairness Hearing to determine whether the
Stipulation of Settlement dated November 7, 2018 (the
Stipulation) should be finally approved as fair, reasonable,
and adequate. The Court has considered all the submissions
and arguments of the Parties. For the reasons addressed
below, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
Title 29, United States Code, Sections 201 et. seq.,
and in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, the
Court finds good cause to grant the Parties' motion and
issue final judgment in this Litigation.
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Court has jurisdiction over this Litigation and jurisdiction
over the Parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
considered all the files, records, and proceedings in this
action, the Court finds that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate in all respects, and complies with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and due process of law.
In reaching this determination, the Court has considered
“(1) the merits of the plaintiff[s'] case, weighed
against the terms of the settlement; (2) the defendant's
financial condition; (3) the complexity and expense of
further litigation; and (4) the amount of opposition to the
settlement.” In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery
Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir. 2005).
Parties' Compliance with Settlement Agreement;
Parties have adequately performed their obligations under the
Stipulation, including but not limited to providing notice of
the settlement in accordance with the Stipulation and
governing law. The notice of the settlement that was provided
in accordance with the Stipulation was the best notice
practicable under the circumstances of these proceedings and
fully satisfied the requirements and the procedures for a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the requirements of due process. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(b), (e) (requiring “best notice that
is practicable under the circumstances, ” provided
“in a reasonable manner, ” to class members as to
class certification and proposed settlement); 29 U.S.C.
§ 216(b) (requiring written consent from employee
plaintiffs in a collective action under FLSA);
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165,
172 (1989) (recognizing that notice process under FLSA should
be “timely, accurate, and informative”).
The Settlement Is a Good-Faith Settlement of a Bona
Settlement of this Litigation was not the product of
collusion between Plaintiffs and the Defendants or their
respective counsel, but rather it constitutes the settlement
of a bona fide dispute as a result of
arm's-length negotiations conducted in good faith between
the parties and their counsel.
on the foregoing and all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: