i

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

RAUL KOPALEISHVILI,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

UZBEK LOGISTICS, INC., et al.

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-CV-00702-TSB

Judge Timothy S. Black

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF A CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, 

AND SERVICE AWARD TO THE NAMED PLAINTIFF

LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq., Admitted pro hac vice

Jack Newhouse, Esq. 

VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 

40 Broad Street, 7th Floor 

New York, New York 10004 

Robert F. Croskery (0064802)

CROSKERY LAW OFFICES

3905 Eastern Avenue, Suite 200

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

Attorneys for Plaintiff Class 

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 1097
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 PAGE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

I. THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE. .............................2

1. The Risk of Fraud or Collusion ...............................................................................3

2. The Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration of the Litigation ...........................3

3. The Amount of Discovery Engaged in by the Parties..............................................4

4. The Likelihood of Success on the Merits ................................................................5

5. The Opinions of Class Counsel................................................................................5

6. The Reaction of Absent Class Members..................................................................5

7. The Public Interest ...................................................................................................6

II. THE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT MEETS DUE PROCESS AND RULE 23 

REQUIREMENTS...............................................................................................................6

III. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS COUNSELS’ ATTORNEYS’ FEES..............7

1. The Value of the Benefits Rendered to the Class....................................................8

2. Public Policy Considerations...................................................................................8

3. The Services were Undertaken on a Contingent Fee Basis .....................................9

4. The Lodestar Cross-Check ....................................................................................10

5. The Complexity of the Litigation ..........................................................................10

6. The Professional Skill and Standing of Counsel on Both Sides............................11

IV. REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION COSTS..............................................................11

V. THE PROPOSED CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AWARD IS REASONABLE ............12

VI. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................13

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 2 of 19 PAGEID #: 1098
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE

Brotherton v Cleveland,

141 F. Supp. 2d 907 (S.D. Ohio 2001) .................................................................................. 7-8, 12

Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 

670 F.2d 760 (7th Cir. 1982) ...........................................................................................................9

City of Detroit v. Grinnell, 

495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974).............................................................................................................9

Connectivity Sys. Inc. v. Nat'l City Bank, 

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7829 (S.D. Ohio 2011)...............................................................................7

Cook v. Niedert, 

142 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 1998) .......................................................................................................12

Deposit Guarantee National Bank v. Roper, 

445 U.S. 326 (1980).........................................................................................................................8

Dillow v. Home Care Network, Inc., 

2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170579 (S.D. Ohio 2018)...........................................................................5

Dolgow v.Anderson, 

43 F.R.D. 472 (E.D.N.Y. 1968).......................................................................................................9

Enter. Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 

137 F.R.D. 240 (S.D. Ohio 1991)............................................................................................11, 12

Franks v. Kroger Co., 

649 F.2d 1216 (6th Cir. 1981) .........................................................................................................6

Godshall v. Franklin Mint Co., 

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23976 (E.D. Pa. 2004) .............................................................................13

Hadix v. Johnson, 

322 F.3d 895 (6th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................................12

Hainey v. Parrott, 

617 F. Supp. 2d 668 (S.D. Ohio 2007) ............................................................................................6

In re Cardinal Health Inc. Sec. Litigs., 

528 F. Supp. 2d 752 (S.D. Ohio 2007) ............................................................................................7

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 3 of 19 PAGEID #: 1099
iv

In re Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. Sec. Litig., 

643 F. Supp. 148 (S.D. Ohio 1986) .................................................................................................8

In re Corrugated Container Anti-Trust Litig. II,

659 F.2d 1322 (5th Cir. 1981) .........................................................................................................6

In re Telectronics, 

137 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (S.D. Ohio 2001) .......................................................................................11

Johnson v. Midwest Logistics Sys., 

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74201 (S.D. Ohio 2013).............................................................................2

Kopaleishvili v Uzbek Logistics Inc., 

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209529 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 4, 2019) ........................................................3, 11

Kritzer v. Safelite Solutions, LLC, 

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74994 (S.D. Ohio 2012).............................................................................8

Lowther v. AK Steel Corp., 

2012 WL 6676131, 2012 US Dist. LEXIS 181476 (S.D. Ohio 2012) ......................................7, 11

Ramey v Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., 

508 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir 1974) ......................................................................................................8, 9

Smillie v. Park Chem. Co., 

710 F. 2d 271 (6th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................................11

Spann v. AOL Time Warner, Inc.,

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10968 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)............................................................................12

Swigart v. Fifth Third Bank, 

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94450 (S.D. Ohio 2014)................................................................... passim

UAW v GMC, 

497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................................................3

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 4 of 19 PAGEID #: 1100
v

STATUTES

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(e)(2) ...........................................................................................................1

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(h)................................................................................................................7

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 54(d)(2)...........................................................................................................7

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 5 of 19 PAGEID #: 1101
1

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of Final Approval of a Class Action 

Settlement and for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Award to the Named Plaintiff. 

This Settlement comes as a result of several years of intense litigation. Class representative, 

Raul Kopaleishvili, commenced this action for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated 

(“Plaintiffs”) setting forth a single breach of contract claim against Defendants Uzbek Logistics, 

Inc. and Uzbek Transport Express, LLC (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs are truck drivers and allege that 

they entered into contracts with Defendants whereby Defendants promised to pay them on a “per 

mile” basis. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their contracts by failing to pay Plaintiffs for 

actual odometer miles driven from origin to destination. 

By Order dated December 4, 2019, the Court certified a class of: 

All drivers who entered into written contracts with Uzbek Logistics, 

Inc. and/or Uzbek Transport Express, LLC since April 2009 requiring 

payment on a “per mile” basis. The class does not include those 

drivers whose contracts expressly state compensation will be paid 

“based on practical miles.” 

Here, the Settlement Agreement is the product of negotiations conducted on both sides by 

experienced counsel who were thoroughly familiar with the factual and legal issues. During the 

course of discovery Plaintiffs undertook extensive discovery and intense analysis of Plaintiffs’ 

claims. The parties ultimately reached an agreement during a settlement conference with the 

Court. 

On November 10, 2021, the Court granted the unopposed motion for preliminary approval 

of the class action settlement. In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court concluded that “it is 

appropriate to direct notice in a reasonable manner to all Class Members who would be bound by 

the proposal because the parties’ showing establishes that the Court will likely be able to approve 

the proposal under Rule 23(e)(2).” Specifically the Court found that “[t]he Agreement: (a) results 

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 6 of 19 PAGEID #: 1102
2

from efforts by the Representative and Class Counsel who adequately represented the class; (b) 

includes an amount of Settlement Consideration that was negotiated at arm’s length during 

mediation with Judge Timothy S. Black; and (c) provides $100,000 gross settlement amount to the 

Class, which is adequate, taking into account: (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) 

the effective proposed method of distributing settlement funds to the Class; and (iii) the terms of 

the proposed award of attorney’s fees and costs, and service award to the Class Representative.”

A copy of the Notice issued to the Class is annexed to the Declaration of LaDonna M. 

Lusher (“Lusher Dec.”) as Exhibit 1. On December 10, 2021, in accordance with the Court’s 

Preliminary Approval Order, Class Counsel sent the Court-approved Notices by First-Class Mail to 

the 49 Class Members. Initially, sixteen (16) notices were returned as undeliverable. Lusher Dec. ¶ 

9. If a Class Member’s Notice was returned as undeliverable and without a forwarding address, 

Class Counsel undertook diligent efforts to locate current contact information for such Class 

Member for purposes of resending the Notices. Id. As a result, new addresses were located for 

fourteen (14) Class Members. Id. After various attempts to locate each Class Member seven 

Notices sent to seven (7) Class Members were returned as undeliverable.1Id. Notably, no Class 

Members objected or opted-out of the settlement. Id. at 10. With such overwhelming support, and 

for the reasons stated below, the Court should grant final approval.

I. THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE.

Before a district court approves a settlement, the Court must find that the settlement is 

"fair, reasonable, and adequate." Johnson v. Midwest Logistics Sys., 2013 US Dist LEXIS 74201, 

at *9 (SD Ohio 2013) (citation omitted). In the Sixth Circuit, district courts consider seven factors 

in determining whether a class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate: (1) the risk of fraud or 

1 Since Class Members are not required to opt-in or file a claim form, the recovery allocated to these seven (7) class 

members will be transferred into the settlement fund. Class Counsel will continue to engage in efforts to locate these 

Class Members. In the event that any of these Class Members are not located prior to the deadline set forth in the 

Settlement Agreement for all Class Members to cash their respective Settlement Checks, any unclaimed Settlement 

Checks will revert to Defendants in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 7 of 19 PAGEID #: 1103
3

collusion; (2) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the amount of 

discovery engaged in by the parties, (4) the likelihood of success on the merits; (5) the opinions of 

class counsel and class representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class members; and (7) the 

public interest. UAW v GMC, 497 F3d 615, 630 (6th Cir 2007). As set forth below, each of these 

factors weighs in favor of approving the parties' settlement.

1. The Risk of Fraud or Collusion

It is beyond dispute that the settlement was the result of arm’s-length negotiations, free of 

collusions or fraud, conducted by experienced counsel for all parties, and achieved through a 

formal mediation with Judge Timothy S. Black. See Swigart v. Fifth Third Bank, 2014 US Dist 

LEXIS 94450, at *6-7 (SD Ohio 2014). Indeed, this action was vigorously litigated. Significant 

discovery was taken and a contested class certification motion was filed and ruled upon. The 

Settlement was a product of extensive negotiations between experienced counsel. Moreover, any 

possibility of fraud or collusion is belied by the fact that the Settlement was facilitated during a 

mediation with the Court. Accordingly, this factor weighs heavily in favor of approval. 

2. The Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration of the Litigation

To litigate this matter to trial would be exceedingly complex and expensive. In this breach 

of contract action, the class dates back to 2009 and Defendants did not possess the contracts for 

many of the Class Members, adding complexity to Plaintiffs’ burden of demonstrating that 

Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs per odometer miles and not practical miles. Throughout this 

litigation, Defendants have argued that the term “per mile” in Class Members’ contracts was 

ambiguous and would require evidence extrinsic to the contract to establish liability. In the 

Court’s decision in support of class certification, the Court agreed that the “phrase ‘per mile’ will 

likely be found susceptible to multiple, reasonable interpretations, necessitating the consideration 

of extrinsic evidence.” Kopaleishvili v. Uzbek Logistics Inc., 2019 US Dist LEXIS 209529, at *23 

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 8 of 19 PAGEID #: 1104
4

(SD Ohio 2019). Defendants asserted that custom and practice in the motor carrier industry must 

be considered when interpreting the term “per mile,” an argument that may require both parties to 

retain expert witnesses. Finally, to assess damages, Plaintiffs intended to rely on GPS records to 

demonstrate the difference between the number of miles each Plaintiff drove and the number of 

miles each Plaintiff was paid. Class Counsel subpoenaed the GPS vendor during pre-class 

certification discovery and received approximately three years of GPS records for two of 

Defendants’ trucks. Lusher Dec. ¶ 17. Analyzing and digesting these GPS records was very time 

consuming. Id. Moreover, the GPS vendor informed Class Counsel that retrieving records dating 

back before 2016 was possible but would be extraordinarily expensive because these records are 

beyond the retention period and no longer easily accessible. Id.

Accordingly, absent settlement, this action would have required a significant amount of 

discovery over highly disputed issues and anticipated motion practice, including motions to 

compel discovery and for summary judgment, which would not only increase the costs of this 

litigation but delay its end substantially. Rather than continue further down this path, the 

Settlement provides an immediate monetary benefit upon Class Members. This factor, thus, 

weighs heavily in favor of approval. 

3. The Amount of Discovery Engaged in by the Parties 

Since filing this action, Class Counsel has extensively investigated the claims and defenses 

at issue in this case through interviewing Named Plaintiff and other putative class members. 

Lusher Dec. ¶ 13. In addition to procuring discovery from Defendants, Class Counsel procured 

discovery from Defendants’ GPS vendor and United States Department of Transportation. Class 

Counsel reviewed thousands of lines of electronic data relevant to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims 

and damages, thoroughly evaluating the routes of more than thirty (30) of Defendants’ drivers, 

analyzing more than 2,400 routes amounting to nearly 710,000 miles reported by Defendants. Id.

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 9 of 19 PAGEID #: 1105
5

Class Counsel deposed two of Defendants’ corporate representatives along with defending the 

depositions of the Named Plaintiff and two putative class members. The motion for class 

certification was thoroughly briefed and the parties were both well prepared for the mediation 

where a settlement was achieved. Accordingly, the parties are well informed of the facts, 

evidence, and legal issues present in this case. 

4. The Likelihood of Success on the Merits 

Based upon the discovery and their extensive experience, Class Counsel assessed the 

risks of establishing liability and damages versus the benefits provided in the proposed 

Settlement. While Plaintiffs believe their claims would ultimately be meritorious, Defendants 

nevertheless had a number of potentially formidable defenses. For example, as set forth above, 

Defendants argued that the term “per mile” did not mean actual miles, but practical miles. Should 

Defendants prevail on this claim alone, many, if not all, Plaintiffs would not have been entitled to 

any recovery at all. 

Though Plaintiffs believe their claims have substantial merit, the Defendants are 

represented by experienced and competent counsel, who would no doubt continue to mount a 

zealous and thorough defense to these claims. Under the Settlement, by contrast, Plaintiffs will 

receive recovery regardless of the potential merit of these defenses. Due to the existence of such 

uncertainty, the negotiated Settlement is the best way to resolve this matter for the class.

5. The Opinions of Class Counsel 

Class Counsel believes that, given the strengths and weaknesses of the claims, this 

settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Lusher Dec., ¶ 11. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel 

supports approval of this settlement. 

6. The Reaction of Absent Class Members

The deadline to submit an objection or opt-out was February 8, 2022. As of the filing of 

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 10 of 19 PAGEID #: 1106
6

this motion, there are currently no Class Members who have objected or opted-out of the 

settlement. Dillow v. Home Care Network, Inc., 2018 US Dist LEXIS 170579, at *9 (SD Ohio 

2018) (finding “[t]he class’s reaction strongly supports approval” where there were no objectors or 

opt-outs). This factor weighs heavily in favor of approval. 

7. The Public Interest 

Strong judicial policy favors resolution of litigation short of trial, particularly in class

action suits. See e.g., Franks v. Kroger Co., 649 F.2d 1216, 1224 (6th Cir. 1981) (the law

generally favors and encourages the settlement of class actions); see also, Hainey v. Parrott, 617 

F Supp 2d 668, 678 (S.D. Ohio 2007). Indeed, settlement of complex cases contribute greatly to 

the efficient utilization of scarce judicial resources and achieve the speedy resolution of justice,

for “[a] just result is often no more than an arbitrary point between competing notions of 

reasonableness.” In re Corrugated Container Anti-Trust Litig. II, 659 F.2d1322, 1325 (5th Cir.

1981). Here, the Settlement provides an immediate benefit to Class Members, avoids further 

litigation of a complex class action, and frees the Court’s judicial resources. Accordingly, this 

factor weighs in favor of approving the proposed Settlement because the public interest is served 

by resolution of this action. 

II. THE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT MEETS DUE PROCESS AND RULE 23 

REQUIREMENTS 

In accordance with the Settlement, and pursuant to the Court’s Preliminary Approval

Order, Class Counsel oversaw the administration of the Notice. The Notice was mailed in 

accordance with the deadlines in the Preliminary Approval Order. Class Counsel searched for 

updated addresses for any Notices that were returned as undeliverable. To date, Class Counsel 

has only been unable to locate seven (7) Class Members. Since the Settlement does not require 

Class Members to opt-in to the Settlement to receive their allocated share of the recovery, these 

Class Members are still entitled to their portion of the Settlement. Class Counsel will continue 

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 11 of 19 PAGEID #: 1107
7

their efforts to locate these individuals. 

In addition, the content of the notice was adequate, comprehensive and timely, and 

afforded Class Members the information necessary to make a timely, informed, and intelligent

decision whether to object to the Settlement. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request the Court find that 

the notice and the methods used to provide notice to the Class satisfy the requirements of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process.

III. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS COUNSEL’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

The Class has been represented by Virginia & Ambinder LLP and the Croskery Law 

Offices (“Class Counsel”), who submit this application in support of their Motion, pursuant to

Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs 

incurred in prosecuting this class action in the amount of $46,250.00. 

District courts may award reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses from the settlement of 

a class action upon motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) and 23(h). Swigart v. Fifth Third Bank, 

2014 US Dist LEXIS 94450, at *14 (SD Ohio 2014) (citing Lowther v. AK Steel Corp., 2012 US 

Dist LEXIS 181476, at *5 (SD Ohio 2012)). “In the Sixth Circuit, district courts have the 

discretion ‘to determine the appropriate method for calculating attorneys’ fees in light of the 

unique characteristics of class actions in general, and the particular circumstances of the actual 

cases pending before the Court’ using either the percentage or lodestar approach.” Swigart, 2014 

US Dist LEXIS 94450, at *15 (quoting In re Cardinal Health Inc. Sec. Litigs., 528 F Supp 2d 

752, 761 (SD Ohio 2007)). “In this district, ‘the preferred method is to award a reasonable 

percentage of the fund, with reference to the lodestar and the resulting multiplier.’” Id (quoting 

Connectivity Sys. Inc. v. Nat'l City Bank, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7829, at *13 (S.D. Ohio 2011)). 

“Common fund case awards in class actions customarily are expressed in terms of a percentage 

of the benefit created; typically the percentages range from 20%-50%.” Brotherton v Cleveland, 

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 12 of 19 PAGEID #: 1108
8

141 F.Supp 2d 907, 910 (SD Ohio 2001) (citing In re Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. Sec. Litig., 

643 F Supp 148, 149-150 (SD Ohio 1986)); Kritzer v. Safelite Solutions, LLC, 2012 US Dist 

LEXIS 74994, at *27 (SD Ohio 2012) (awarding attorneys’ fees and costs equal to nearly 52% 

of the total recovery from Defendants).

In reviewing the reasonableness of the requested award, the Sixth Circuit requires district 

courts to consider six factors, known as the Ramey factors: (1) the value of the benefits rendered 

to the class; (2) society's stake in rewarding attorneys who produce such benefits in order to 

maintain an incentive to others; (3) whether the services were undertaken on a contingent fee 

basis; (4) the value of the services on an hourly basis [the lodestar cross-check]; (5) the 

complexity of the litigation; and (6) the professional skill and standing of counsel on both sides. 

Ramey v Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., 508 F2d 1188, 1194-1197 (6th Cir 1974). As set forth below, 

each of these factors weighs in favor of approving the requested amount in attorneys’ fees. 

1. The Value of the Benefits Rendered to the Class

The work performed by Class Counsel resulted in a settlement of $100,000.00. While

Plaintiffs believe that they would have prevailed on their claims against Defendants, there were

risks that the Class could recover nothing. The Settlement eliminates these risks. Instead of facing 

additional costly litigation and the time, expense, and delays involved in a trial and appeals, Class 

Members who suffered losses will recover damages in the Settlement.

2. Public Policy Considerations

An important factor under Ramey is "society's stake in rewarding attorneys who produce

such benefits in order to maintain an incentive to others." 508 F.2d at 1196. The courts consistently 

recognize that common fund fee awards serve the important purpose of encouraging individuals to 

seek legal assistance to recover for their injuries, which have also been similarly suffered by large 

groups of people. See Deposit Guarantee National Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 328 (1980) (The 

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 13 of 19 PAGEID #: 1109
9

financial inducements offered by the class action procedure have played an important role "in 

vindicating the rights of individuals who otherwise might not consider it worth the candle to 

embark on litigation in which the optimum result might be more than consumed by the cost.").

Adequate compensation is necessary to encourage attorneys to assume the risk of litigation in the 

public interest. Dolgow v.Anderson, 43 F.R.D. 472, 487, 494 (E.D.N.Y. 1968) ("Every successful 

suit duly rewarded encourages other suits to redress misconduct and by the same token discourages 

misconduct which would occasion suit").

In addition, “[s]ociety’s stake in rewarding attorneys who bring class action wage and hour 

cases favors the requested award.” Swigart, 2014 US Dist LEXIS 94450, at *16. Although the 

instant action is not a statutory wage action, it is nevertheless a claim for compensation allegedly 

owed to Plaintiffs for labor furnished for the benefit of Defendants. Accordingly, this factor weighs 

in favor of approval. 

3. The Services were Undertaken on a Contingent Fee Basis

Courts have long emphasized risk as a crucial factor in determining upward adjustments.

See, e.g., Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.2d 760, 770 (7th Cir. 1982). As statedin City of Detroit 

v. Grinnell, 495 F.2d 448,471 (2d Cir. 1974): "[P]erhaps the foremost of these factors [justifying a 

multiplier] is...the fact that, despite the most vigorous and competent efforts, success is never 

guaranteed." Accord Ramey, 508 F. 2d at 1197.

Despite the very real possibility that Plaintiffs would obtain no recovery and that Counsel 

would not be compensated, Counsel spent in excess of 1,400 hours of labor and $5,000 in litigation 

expenses. When Plaintiffs' Counsel undertook this case, it was with the expectation that they would

devote thousands of hours of hard work and advance sums in expenses. Class Counsel devoted the 

time and expenses necessary to properly and effectively litigate this class action, including 

traveling to Ohio to depose Defendants’ corporate representatives, in addition to traveling to two 

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 14 of 19 PAGEID #: 1110
10

different cities in Texas to defend the depositions of two putative class members. Lusher Dec., ¶ 22. 

Furthermore, Class Counsel understands that its duties and obligations do not end upon the Court’s 

final approval of the Settlement. Class Counsel must still coordinate and administer the settlement 

payments along with communicate with Class Members regarding any questions they may have or 

issues that arise. Lusher Dec., ¶ 23.

To date, Class Counsel has not received any compensation for their considerable efforts 

since the commencement of this action in 2017. Lusher Dec., ¶ 26. At no time did Plaintiffs’

Counsel indicate that they were not willing to take this case to trial. Accordingly, this factor weighs 

heavily in favor of approving the requested fees and costs. 

4. The Lodestar Cross-Check 

In this action, both Virginia & Ambinder, LLP and Croskery Law Offices were 

appointed class counsel by the Court. Class Counsel have collectively billed 1,404.87 hours to 

this action for a combined lodestar of approximately $299,218.99. See Lusher Dec., ¶ 20. Class 

Counsel’s lodestar multiplier of 0.15 is far below multipliers that have been approved in other 

class actions in this Circuit. Swigart, 2014 US Dist LEXIS 94450, at *18 (approving 2.57 

multiplier). 

5. The Complexity of the Litigation

Plaintiffs’ breach of contract class action is highly complex. As a preliminary matter, any 

class action sounding in breach of contract is inherently complex given the potential for 

individualized issues relating to contract interpretation. Even more so in this action, where 

Plaintiffs are long-haul truck drivers and did not all reside in the same state, Class Counsel was 

faced with the added complexity of resolving whether the applicable common law regarding 

contract interpretation was that of one state or many. Furthermore, establishing damages in this 

action would have required a detailed analysis of additional extensive and costly discovery. 

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 15 of 19 PAGEID #: 1111
11

Resolving the procedural issues, the merits, and damages would have been risky, costly and time 

consuming. Accordingly, the litigation is difficult and complex, and this factor weighs in favor of 

awarding the requested fees. 

6. The Professional Skill and Standing of Counsel on Both Sides

The skill and efficiency of attorneys is evidenced by their local reputations as well as their 

experience and expertise in the area. Enter. Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 

137 F.R.D. 240, 249 (S.D. Ohio 1991). In assessing the skill of Class Counsel, it is also important 

to assess the quality of defense counsel as well, to determine the quality of service Class Counsel 

rendered. See Lowther, 2012 WL 6676131, at *3 (citing Smillie v. Park Chem. Co., 710 F. 2d 271, 

275 (6th Cir. 1983)).

As discussed in the Declaration of LaDonna Lusher, and as already recognized by the Court 

in the Class Certification Order and Preliminary Approval Order, Class Counsel are highly 

qualified, experienced and have substantial credentials representing Plaintiffs in class action 

litigation. See Kopaleishvili v. Uzbek Logistics Inc., 2019 US Dist LEXIS 209529, *41 (S.D.Ohio 

2019) (finding counsel qualified and experienced in the work of class action litigation; see also

Lusher Dec., ¶¶ 26-27. The law firm representing Defendants, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & 

Feary, has defended hundreds of class and collective actions against motor carriers. Defendants’ 

lead counsel, Angela Cash, has defended motor carriers in class and collective actions in federal 

and state courts across the United States. Lusher Dec., ¶ 29.

Accordingly, the professional skill and standing of counsel on both sides is substantial and 

this factor supports approval of the requested fee award.

IV. REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION COSTS 

Class Counsel have unreimbursed expenses of $5,274.38. Lusher Dec., ¶ 21. Class Counsel

entitled to be reimbursed for these expenses in a common fund case. In re Telectronics, 137 F. 

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 16 of 19 PAGEID #: 1112
12

Supp. 2d at 1036 (S.D. Ohio) (“Counsel contributed to the creation of the Settlement Fund, and 

accordingly, are entitled to receive a reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses in the 

[requested] amount”); Enter. Energy Group, 137 F.R.D. at 250 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (holding that 

Plaintiffs’ counsel was entitled to the full recovery of their expenses from the common fund); 

Swigart, 2014 US Dist LEXIS 94450, at *19 (approving reimbursement of litigation costs). 

These expenses include court filing fees, transcript fees, postage, travel, and lodging.

Class Counsel submits that these expenses were reasonably and necessarily incurred to achieve 

the result obtained for the Class. In addition, even if the Court were to find that some or all of 

these expenses should not be approved, Class Counsel respectfully submits that the requested 

amount of $46,250.00 is reasonable even if fully attributable to attorney’s fees without any 

consideration for costs. 

V. THE PROPOSED CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AWARD IS REASONABLE 

Plaintiffs request that the Court approve a service award to the Named Plaintiff totaling 

$7,500.00. It is common for courts, exercising their discretion, to award special compensation to

class representatives in recognition of the time and effort they have invested for the benefit of the

class, which usually includes providing information to counsel, reviewing and approving pleadings, 

assisting with discovery, preparing for and/or attending a deposition, and participating in settlement 

discussions. These awards to class representatives generally are paid from the common fund. See, 

Hadix v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 895, 897-898 (6th Cir. 2003). Such awards have been approved in 

numerous cases and are appropriate here. See, e.g., Swigart, 2014 US Dist LEXIS 94450, at *18 

(approving “modest” award of $10,000 to each class representatives); Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d

1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 1998) (approving $25,000 class representative award); Brotherton v. 

Cleveland, 141 F. Supp. 2d 907 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (Spiegel, S.J.) (other history omitted) (awarding 

named plaintiff and class representative incentive fee of $50,000); Spann v. AOL Time Warner,

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 17 of 19 PAGEID #: 1113
13

Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10968, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (awarding class representatives

$10,000.00 each); Godshall v. Franklin Mint Co., No. 01-6439,2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23976, at

*25 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (awarding class representatives $20,000.00 each); Presley v. Carter Hawley 

Hale Profit Sharing Plan, No. 97-4316, 2000 WL16437, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (awarding class 

representatives $25,000.00 each).

Here, Plaintiff dedicated a significant amount of time to this action, including, but not 

limited to, meeting with Class Counsel, reviewing pleadings, responding to discovery, attending a 

deposition, remaining in contact with Class Counsel, attending the mediation, and participating in 

the negotiation process. The requested service award in the amount of $7,500.00 is modest. 

Moreover, the service award was expressly identified in the Notice provided to the Class and not a 

single Class Member has objected to it. As such, the requested service award is reasonable and 

should be approved. 

VI. CONCLUSION

The settlement is the result of extensive negotiations by the parties and was ultimately 

facilitated during a mediation with Judge Timothy S. Black. The payment is fair, reasonable and

adequate and favorably resolves Plaintiffs’ claims. This is evidenced by the fact that not one of

the Class Members has objected to the terms of this Settlement or opted-out. For these and the

other foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to approve the Settlement, 

award attorneys’ fees and costs, and service award to the Named Plaintiff. A proposed Order and 

Final Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 1, 2021

Filed by Class Counsel 

on behalf of all Parties

_______/s/________________

Class Counsel: LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq., Admitted pro hac vice

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 18 of 19 PAGEID #: 1114
14

VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP

40 Broad Street, 7th Floor

New York, New York 10004

Tel: (212) 943-9080

Fax: (212) 943-9082

llusher@vandallp.com

 

Robert F. Croskery (0064802)

CROSKERY LAW OFFICES

3905 Eastern Avenue, Suite 200

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

Tel: (212) 232-5297

Counsel for Defendants: Angela S. Cash, Admitted Pro Hac Vice

SCOPELITIS GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & 

FEARY, P.C.

10 West Market Street, Suite 1400

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Tel: (317) 637-1777

Brandon McGrath (0072057)

BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP

255 East Fifth Street, Suite 2350

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Tel: (513) 455-7641

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify this 1st day of March, 2022, that copies of the foregoing were served via the 

CM/ECF system to all counsel of record.

/s/Robert F. Croskery

Robert F. Croskery, (0064802)

Case: 1:17-cv-00702-TSB Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/01/22 Page: 19 of 19 PAGEID #: 1115