1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RONALD CLARK, on behalf of : 

himself and those similarly situated, : 

 : Case No. 2:18-cv-157 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : CHIEF JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 v. : 

 : MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAVERS 

PIZZA BAKER, INC., et al., : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL ORDER 

This matter comes before this Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Settlement 

Approval between Plaintiff and Defendants Lisa Burkett and Precision Pizza, LLC (the 

“Precision Defendants”). (ECF No. 176). For the following reasons, this Court GRANTS the 

Motion for Settlement Approval, and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. As 

outlined in the settlement agreement, within thirty (30) days of Defendants making the first 

round of payments to the class, the parties will submit a stipulation dismissing, with prejudice, 

the Precision Defendants from the lawsuit. (ECF No. 176-1 at 8). This Court will retain 

jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Ronald Clark, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, 

initiated this lawsuit in February 2018 by filing a Class and Collective Action Complaint with 

this Court against three groups of Defendants: (1) Domino’s Pizza, Inc., Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 

and Domino’s Pizza Franchising, LLC (the “Domino’s Defendants”); (2) the Precision 

Defendants; and (3) the Christopher Baker and Pizza Baker, LLC (the “Baker Defendants”). 

(ECF No. 1). Clark, a pizza delivery driver for Defendants, alleged that they violated the Fair 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 1 of 17 PAGEID #: 2187
2 

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 34a (“Section 34a”), 

O.R.C. § 4113.15 (Ohio’s “Prompt Pay Act”), and O.R.C. § 2307.60. (ECF No. 1). 

As a delivery driver, Plaintiff delivered pizza and other items to customers. (ECF No. 158 

at ¶¶ 85-86). When not completing deliveries, delivery drivers performed other tasks, including 

constructing boxes, cleaning, food preparation, and other duties as necessary. (Id. at ¶ 89). 

Delivery drivers were paid at or close to minimum wage, or minimum wage minus a tip credit. 

(Id. at ¶ 90). The Defendants required their delivery drivers to maintain and pay for their own 

operable, safe, and legally compliant automobiles to make deliveries. (Id. at ¶ 92). Delivery 

drivers were responsible for job-related expenses, including automobile costs and depreciations, 

gas, automobile maintenance and parts, insurance coverage, financing costs, cell phone costs, 

and any other necessary equipment, for which they were not wholly reimbursed. (Id. at ¶¶ 93-

94). Plaintiff alleges that the Precision Defendants reimbursed drivers a flat per-delivery 

payment amount. (Id. at ¶¶ 98-99). The Defendants did not reimburse their drivers at the IRS 

standard mileage rate for the delivery miles driven, which they were required to do because they 

did not keep records of Plaintiff’s actual expenses. (Id. ¶¶ 120, 148, 153). Due to these expenses, 

Plaintiff alleges that he and similarly situated delivery drivers were deprived of minimum and 

overtime wages guaranteed to them under the FLSA and Ohio law. (Id. ¶¶ 144–47, 163– 64). 

A. Procedural History 

Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former 

delivery drivers who elected to opt in, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, and who did not 

opt out as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23. (ECF No. 3 at 45-46). Plaintiff filed the 

First Amended Complaint on February 27, 2018. (ECF No. 3). The Defendants sought to dismiss 

the action to the extent it sought declaratory relief in April 2018, and this Court granted the 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 2 of 17 PAGEID #: 2188
3 

motion. (ECF Nos. 23, 24, 44, 99). Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Certify the Class and send 

notice to similarly situated employees in October 2019. (ECF No. 106). Discovery in the case 

and the briefing on the Motion for Conditional Certification were then stayed while the parties 

completed all discovery related to the issue of joint employment. (ECF Nos. 122, 128). 

Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint against the Defendants in April 2020, 

adding a claim for unjust enrichment, and the stay on discovery was lifted that same month. 

(ECF Nos. 137, 139). The Defendants filed a new Motion to Dismiss in May 2020, which this 

Court denied. (ECF Nos. 140, 141, 142, 144, 151). Plaintiff then filed the Third Amended 

Complaint in October 2020, seeking to: (1) dismiss without prejudice the claims asserted against 

the Domino’s Defendants; and (2) limit the scope of the proposed FLSA collective/Rule 23 class 

to pizza delivery drivers who worked for the Domino’s Pizza franchise locations owned and 

operated by the Precision and Baker Defendants during the relevant period. (ECF No. 158 at 3). 

He then filed a revised Motion to Certify the Class and send notice to similarly situated 

employees, which was held in abeyance pending mediation. (ECF No. 163, 165). 

B. Settlement Agreements 

Plaintiff and the Precision Defendants reached settlement following a second mediation 

session held in January 2021. (ECF Nos. 168, 169, 170). Plaintiff filed an unopposed Motion for 

Preliminary Settlement Approval with the Precision Defendants, which this Court granted in part 

and denied in part. (ECF Nos. 169, 171). This Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended notice 

properly informing the proposed FLSA putative collective action members how to opt-in to the 

settlement, while allowing the Rule 23 class action members to opt out of the settlement. (ECF 

No. 171 at 3). Following review of the Amended Notice filed by Plaintiff on May 9, 2022, this 

Court issued an order stating the notification deficiencies were satisfied and ordering the Notice 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 3 of 17 PAGEID #: 2189
4 

Period to commence. (ECF No. 174). On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed an unopposed 

Motion for Final Settlement Approval with the Precision Defendants. (ECF No. 176). 

The Precision Defendants agreed to pay $300,000 to resolve all of the claims raised in the 

lawsuit, and all claims against the Precision Defendants will be released and they will be 

dismissed from the suit. (ECF Nos. 176 at 4, 176-1 at 2). Counsel also requests $100,000.00 in 

attorney’s fees, $8,993.29 as reimbursement for the Claim Administrator’s fees, and $835.32 for 

expenses related to filing fees, service of process, TransUnion research, and Plaintiff’s portion of 

the mediator fee. (ECF No. 176 at 10, 15-16). Additionally, Plaintiff requests $5,000 as a service 

award. (Id. at 16). These expenses will be deducted from the total award prior to calculation of 

the Class Members’ payments, leaving $185,171.39 from which the class payments will be 

calculated. (ECF No. 176-1 at 3). 

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Administrator will calculate each Class 

Member’s under-reimbursed expenses at $0.55 per mile driven during the Settlement Period less 

any actual reimbursement received. (ECF No. 176-1 at 3). This amount will be multiplied by one 

to account for other potential damages under Ohio and federal law. (Id.). These amounts will be 

added together to determine each Class Member’s maximum possible award. (Id.). If Class 

Members’ maximum possible awards collectively exceed the remaining Settlement Fund, Class 

Members’ award amounts will be reduced on a pro-rata basis. (Id.). Due to the Precision 

Defendants’ financial inability to withstand a greater settlement, the Precision Defendants will 

make three payments to Class Members and Class Counsel over a year. (ECF No. 176 at 4-5). 

The Court will retain continuing jurisdiction over the Settlement. (ECF No. 176-1 at 5). 

C. Claims Process and Final Fairness Hearing 

The Class Members for purposes of the proposed Final Settlement Agreement with the 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 4 of 17 PAGEID #: 2190
5 

Precision Defendants is defined as: 

“All non-exempt hourly employees of Precision Pizza LLC and/or Lisa Burkett 

who received mileage reimbursement related to the delivery of Domino’s Pizza. 

The ‘Class Period’ is from February 23, 2015 to January 26, 2021.” (ECF No. 

176-1 at 1-2). 

Consistent with this Court’s Preliminary Approval Order (ECF No. 171), the Claims 

Administrator for the Settlement with the Precision Defendants mailed and emailed notice to 270 

workers. (ECF No. 176 at 9). Of those mailings, 9 were returned undeliverable, even after the 

Claims Administrator corrected 37 addresses through a TransUnion search. (Id.). No class 

members objected to the settlement nor opted out. (Id.). As such, 100% of the class will receive a 

check for their portion of the settlement without taking any additional action. (Id.). 

This Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Settlement Agreement, heard 

arguments from the parties at a Final Fairness Hearing on October 12, 2022, and approves the 

proposed settlement for the following reasons. 

II. LAW & ANALYSIS 

A. Final Certification and Approval 

This Court has already certified the Rule 23 Settlement Class and FLSA Collective (ECF 

No. 171) and finds nothing has changed regarding the appropriateness of certification. 

B. Sufficiency of Notice 

In class actions certified under Rule 23(b)(3) (see ECF No. 171 at 1), notice of settlement 

must meet the requirements of both Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e). 

First, no class action may be settled, dismissed, or compromised without court approval, 

preceded by notice to class members. Fed R. Civ. P. 23(e). Rule 23(c)(2)(B) requires that notice 

to the class be “the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual 

notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.” The notice must be 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 5 of 17 PAGEID #: 2191
6 

“reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of 

the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objection.” Int’l Union, United Auto., 

Aerospace, and Agr. Implement Workers of Am. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F. 3d 615, 629-30 

(6th Cir. 2007) (hereinafter UAW) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 

U.S. 306, 314 (1950). 

Here, the Settlement Notice for the agreements with the Precision Defendants “‘fairly 

apprised[d] the prospective members of the class of the terms of the proposed settlement’ so that 

class members [could] come to their own conclusions about whether the settlement serves their 

interest.” Id. at 630 (quoting Grunin v. Int’l House of Pancakes, 513 F. 2d 114, 122 (8th Cir. 

1975)). The Notice “explained its purpose, discussed the nature of the pending suit and proposed 

class and accurately summarized the [] settlement agreement.” Id. 

C. Whether Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable 

Before approving a settlement agreement, this Court, must determine if the settlement is 

“fair, adequate, and reasonable, as well as consistent with the public interest.” Bailey v. Great 

Lakes Canning, Inc., 908 F. 2d 38, 42 (6th Cir. 1990) (citing U.S. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel 

Corp., 804 F.2d 348, 351 (6th Cir. 1986)). To do so, the Court balances several factors: (1) the 

risk of fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the 

amount of discovery completed; (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 in the settlement.” Vigna v. Emery Fed. Credit Union, No. 1:15-CV-51, 2016 WL 

7034237, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2016). In reviewing a proposed class and collective action 

settlement, the district court has “‘wide discretion in assessing the weight and applicability’ of 

the relevant factors.” Vassalle v. Midland Funding LLC, 708 F.3d 747, 754 (6th Cir. 2013) 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 6 of 17 PAGEID #: 2192
7 

(quoting Granada Invs., Inc. v. DWG Corp., 962 F.2d 1203, 1205–06 (6th Cir. 1992)). Here, this 

Court finds that the Settlement Agreement with the Precision Defendants is fair, adequate, and 

reasonable, because all seven factors weigh in favor of approval. 

1. Risk of Fraud or Collusion 

The first factor, risk of fraud or collusion, is negligible, which favors settlement approval. 

In the order preliminarily approving the settlement agreement for the Defendants, this Court 

noted that the settlement was the result of “arms-length negotiations conducted after Class 

Counsel [had] adequately investigated the claims and became familiar with the strengths and 

weakness of those claims.” (ECF No. 171 at ¶ 7). The Defendants filed multiple Motions to 

Dismiss, the parties argued over the scope of discovery, and the Plaintiff briefed a Motion for 

Conditional Certification. (ECF Nos. 32, 99, 122, 151). The parties also engaged in two 

mediation sessions in March 2020 and January 2021, before which Defendants provided Plaintiff 

financial disclosure statements regarding their ability to pay a settlement or judgment. (ECF No. 

176 at 4). “The participation of an independent mediator in settlement negotiations virtually 

[e]nsures that the negotiations were conducted at arm’s length and without collusion between the 

parties.” Bert v. AK Steel Corp., No. 1:02-cv-467, 2008 WL 4693747, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 

2008). Following the second mediation, the parties reached settlement. (Id.). In this context and 

upon the representation of Plaintiff’s Counsel, there is no reason to believed that the settlement 

involved fraud or collusion, and this Court finds negotiations were conducted at arm’s-length. 

2. Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration of Litigation 

This Court notes that wage and hour class/collective actions are “inherently complex, and 

settlement avoids the costs, delays, and multitude of other problems associated with them.” Carr 

v. Guardian Healthcare Holdings, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-6292, 2022 WL 501206, at *5 (S.D. Ohio 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 7 of 17 PAGEID #: 2193
8 

Jan. 19, 2022); see also Brandenburg v. Cousin Vinny’s Pizza, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-516, 2019 WL 

6310376, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 25, 2019); In re Teletronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 137 F. Supp. 2d 

985, 1013 (S.D. Ohio 2001). Plaintiff also contends that pizza delivery driver cases are especially 

complex and time consuming because the appropriate legal standard for delivery driver 

reimbursement remains disputed. (ECF No. 176 at 7). As a result, these cases hinge on 

regulations, issues of Auer deference, conflicting guidance from the Department of Labor, and 

the need for expert testimony. (Id.) This Court also appreciates that providing relief to class 

members now will eliminate any uncertainty or delay. Given the important, disputed legal issues 

that remain unresolved at this juncture, the complexity, expense, and duration of continued 

litigation weighs in favor of settlement. 

3. Amount of Discovery Completed 

To ensure the “Plaintiff has ‘had access to sufficient information to evaluate [his] case 

and to assess the adequacy of the proposed Settlement[],’ the Court must consider the amount of 

discovery engaged in by the parties.” Carr, 2022 WL 501206, at *5 (quoting In re Broadwing, 

Inc. ERISA Litig., 252 F.R.D. 369, 374 (S.D. Ohio 2005)). This case was originally filed in 

February 2018. (ECF No. 1). The Plaintiff has overcome two Motions to Dismiss by both the 

Defendants in this case. (ECF No. 176 at 7). The parties are in the midst of discovery, and 

Plaintiff alleges that there were several discovery disputes nearly ripe for submission to this 

Court prior to mediation. (Id. at 4). The Precision Defendants also provided Plaintiff: (1) 

financial disclosures about their ability to pay a settlement or judgment; and (2) adequate 

information about the Precision Defendants’ reimbursement rates, total potential damages, and 

the type of reimbursement at issue (per mile, per delivery, percent-of-order) from the 

Defendants’ records. (ECF No. 169 at 7–8). Plaintiff’s Counsel has litigated a number of cases 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 8 of 17 PAGEID #: 2194
9 

involving pizza delivery drivers, allowing them to effectively evaluate the remaining 

complexities of the case and the appropriateness of a settlement. (Id. at 8). This Court finds that 

Plaintiff’s Counsel’s experience in this type of litigation and the exchange of information ahead 

of mediation was sufficient to inform fully the settlement negotiations. Wright v. Premier 

Courier, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-654, 2018 WL 3966253, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2018). 

4. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 

A plaintiff’s probability of success on the merits is the “most important factor” for a court 

to consider in approving a wage and hour class/collective action settlement. See Kritzer v. 

Safelite Solutions, LLC, No. 2:10-cv-0729, 2012 WL 1945144, at *6 (S.D. Ohio May 30, 2012). 

If the Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits is low, “the more desirable a favorable 

settlement appears.” Id. While Plaintiff contends that the underlying facts of the case are not 

disputed, the appropriate legal standard for reimbursing delivery drivers remains disputed and is 

set for Sixth Circuit briefing. (ECF No. 176 at 5). Under Plaintiff’s theory of the case, if Plaintiff 

prevailed, the under-reimbursement amount would be $619,988.36, with the possibility of 

substantial, additional compensatory and punitive damages under FLSA’s liquidated damages 

provision and Ohio law. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff notes, however, that the Defendants “would have a 

limited ability to pay them,” especially after expending financial resources for a trial and appeal. 

(Id.). If the Defendants prevailed, the parties would litigate whether the Defendants “reasonably 

approximated” the drivers’ expenses, necessitating expert testimony. (Id.). Either Plaintiff’s 

claims would be eliminated if this Court found that Defendants reasonably approximated drivers’ 

expenses, or damages would be reduced to a minimal sum if this Court concluded that Plaintiff 

was only under-reimbursed by a few cents. (Id.). 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 9 of 17 PAGEID #: 2195
10 

A settlement of $300,000.00 to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers for underreimbursement, as well as awards and fees, is a substantial sum, especially given the Defendants’ 

financial limitations. (Id. at 6). The amount of recovery, in combination with the uncertainty of 

any recovery for Plaintiff and the proposed class if litigation proceeded, demonstrate the value of 

the proposed settlement outweighs the likelihood of success on the merits. 

5. Judgment of Experienced Counsel 

Plaintiff’s Counsel, who regularly litigates FLSA and state wage and hour claims on 

behalf of pizza delivery drivers, submits that the proposed final settlement is fair, reasonable, and 

adequate. (Id. at 5). The Court gives great weight to the beliefs of experienced counsel. See 

Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 922–23 (6th Cir. 1983) (“The court should defer to the 

judgment of experienced counsel who has competently evaluated the strength of his proofs.”). 

Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approval. 

6. Reaction of Absent Class Members 

The reaction of potential class members also supports approval. No class or collective 

action members objected to settlement nor opted out. (ECF No. 176 at 9). 

7. Public Interest 

As the district court noted in Kritzer, there is a “public interest favoring settlement . . . as 

the proposed settlement ends potentially long and protracted litigation.” 2012 WL 1945144, at *6 

(citing In re Broadwing, 252 F.R.D. at 369). The public interest is served where a settlement 

“provides relief to the class members, avoids further litigation, and frees the Court’s judicial 

resources.” Mullins v. S. Ohio Pizza, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-426, 2019 WL 275711, at *3 (S.D. Ohio 

Jan. 18, 2019). Plaintiff also submits that there is a public interest in ensuring that minimum 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 10 of 17 PAGEID #: 2196
11 

wage workers receive a just and speedy resolution to claims for unpaid wages. (ECF No. 176 at 

9). This factor also weighs in favor of settlement approval. 

D. Attorneys’ Fees 

An award of attorneys’ fees must be reasonable, meaning it must be “one that is adequate 

to attract competent counsel, but . . . [does] not produce windfalls to attorneys.” Reed v. Rhodes, 

179 F.3d 453, 471 (6th Cir. 1999). There are two methods for determining whether a fee is 

reasonable: the percentage-of-the-fund method and the lodestar method. Van Horn v. Nationwide 

Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 436 F. App’x 496, 498 (6th Cir. 2011). The Sixth Circuit has approved 

both methods. Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Prop., Inc., 9 F.3d 513, 515–16 (6th Cir. 1993). 

When using the percentage-of-the-fund method, courts in this Circuit generally approve of 

awards that are one-third of the total settlement. See, e.g., Rotuna v. W. Customer Mgmt. Grp., 

LLC, 4:09-cv-1608, 2010 WL 2490989, at *8 (N.D. Ohio Jun. 15, 2010) (approving attorneys’ 

fees in the amount of one-third of the settlement fund). The lodestar figure represents the number 

of hours spent multiplied by reasonable rates. Reed, 179 F.3d at 471. Although not mandatory, 

courts frequently cross-check counsel’s request for percentage-of-the-fund awards against the 

lodestar. Van Horn, 436 F. App’x at 501. A district court has discretion to select which method is 

appropriate in light of the “unique characteristics of class actions in general, and of the unique 

circumstances of the actual cases before them.” Id. 

A district court also analyzes the following factors in determining whether the fee is 

reasonable: (1) the value of the benefit rendered to the plaintiff class; (2) the value of the services 

on an hourly basis; (3) whether the services were undertaken on a contingent-fee basis; 

(4) society’s stake in rewarding attorneys who produce such benefits in order to maintain an 

incentive to others; (5) the complexity of the litigation; and (6) the professional skill and 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 11 of 17 PAGEID #: 2197
12 

standing of counsel involved on both sides. Castillo v. Morales, No. 2:12-cv-650, 2015 WL 

13021899, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 22, 2015) (citing Ramey v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., 508 F.2d 

1188, 1196 (6th Cir. 1974)). 

1. Value of Benefit to Plaintiff Class 

Here, the parties propose a percentage-of-the-fund method. (ECF No. 176 at 10). 

Plaintiff’s Counsel would receive attorneys’ fees of $100,000, amounting to one-third of the total 

settlement proposed. (ECF No. 176 at 10). Plaintiff alleges that if his legal theory and calculation 

of damages prevailed, Precision Defendants would be liable for $619,988.36, which would result 

in higher proposed attorneys’ fees under the percentage-of-the-fund method. (ECF No. 176 at 

11). Under the proposed approach, after subtracting other fees and costs requested, class 

members under the Precision Defendant agreement will receive about 29.9% of their alleged 

unpaid wages. (Id.). This is in line with other decisions in the Sixth Circuit and would benefit the 

members of the class. See Dillworth v. Case Farms Processing, Inc., No. 5:08-cv-1694, 2010 

WL 776933, at *8 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2010) (explaining that the average recovery in class 

actions is 7-11% of claimed damages). 

2. Value of Service 

Currently, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s lodestar for the Precision Defendants and Baker 

Defendants together is $450,142 for a total of 814.1 hours of work as of August 26, 2022. (ECF 

Nos. 175 at 12, 176 at 12). Given that the claims against the defendants were the same, nearly all 

of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s work in this case was related to both sets of defendants, making it 

difficult to distinguish the number of hours dedicated individually to each group of Defendants. 

Plaintiff’s Counsel suggested prorating the lodestar between the two settlements based on the 

value of the settlements. (Id. at 13). Therefore, roughly 37% of the lodestar, or $166,553, would 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 12 of 17 PAGEID #: 2198
13 

be attributable to the proposed settlement with the Precision Defendants, and roughly 63% of the 

lodestar, or $283,589, would be attributable to the Baker Defendants. (Id.). 

While this Court accepts Plaintiff’s Counsel’s prorated approach to disaggregating the 

lodestar between the two cases in this matter, Plaintiff’s Counsel did not disaggregate the hours 

worked between the two cases, such that this Court could crosscheck the percentage-of-the-fund 

attorneys’ fees proposal against a lodestar representative of the actual amount of time worked on 

addressing the Precision Defendants’ claims. This Court acknowledges, however, that these 

cases are unique. Because of the extreme similarities across defendant groups, it is difficult for 

Plaintiff’s Counsel to disaggregate the hours worked on each case. Plaintiffs should be advised, 

however, that this Court prefers counsel provide a disaggregation of hours worked on multi-party 

case when calculating the lodestar and are encouraged to provide such disaggregation in the 

future. 

Plaintiff’s Counsel requests a total of $180,142, across both settlements, less than their 

lodestar, which strongly weighs in favor of granting attorneys’ fees. See Myers v. Memorial 

Health System Marietta Memorial Hospital, No. 15-cv-2956, 2022 WL 4079559, at *6 (S.D. 

Ohio Sep. 6, 2022) (concluding that an attorneys’ fee that was $1,033,933 less than their lodestar 

weighed heavily in favor of approving the fee request); Kritzer, 2012 WL 19545122, at *10 

(finding a proposed attorneys’ fee of less than the lodestar calculation reasonable). In fact, 

awards of common-fund attorney fees in amounts two or three-times greater than the lodestar 

have been found reasonable. See Johnson v. Midwest Logistics Systems, Ltd., 2:11-cv-1061, 2013 

WL 2295880, at *6 (S.D. Ohio May 24, 2013) (concluding a lodestar multiplier of 2.25 was 

reasonable); Lowther v. AK Steel Corp., 2012 WL 6676131, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2012) 

(approving a multiplier of 3.06 in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act case). 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 13 of 17 PAGEID #: 2199
14 

Finally, Plaintiff’s Counsel alleges that their hourly rates have been approved in other 

cases by this Court, with the sole exception of Mr. Kimble who recently raised his hourly rate 

from $550 to $600 to reflect his experience in pizza delivery driver cases. See Waters v. Pizza to 

You, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-372, 2022 WL 3048376, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2022); Estate of 

McConnell v. EUBA Corp., No. 3:18-cv-00355, 2021 WL 1966062, at *6 (S.D. Ohio May 17, 

2021); Arp v. Hohla & Wyss Enterprises, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-119, 2020 WL 6498956, at *7 (S.D. 

Ohio, Nov. 5, 2020). Despite the increase in Mr. Kimble’s hourly rate, this new amount reflects 

the increase in value Mr. Kimble brings to the litigation from his years of experience on pizza 

delivery driver cases and weighs in favor of approval of the requested fees. 

3. Whether Services Undertaken on Contingency Fee Basis 

Third, Plaintiff’s Counsel undertook representation on a one-third contingency fee 

agreement and the notice sent to class/collective action members informed them of this 

arrangement. (ECF No. 178-1 at 4). In doing so, Plaintiff’s Counsel “undertook the risk of not 

being compensated” at all. O’Bryant v. Pillars Protection Servs., LLC, No. 2:19-cv-1354, 2020 

WL 7486712, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 17, 2020) (quoting Kritzer, 2012 WL 1945144, at *9). As 

Plaintiff’s Counsel has not been compensated since the beginning of this litigation, this factor 

weighs in favor of this Court granting an award of attorneys’ fees. See Feiertag v. DDP, No. 14-

cv-2643, 2016, WL 4721208, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 9, 2016). 

4. Society’s Stake in Attorneys’ Fees 

Society benefits when attorneys take on class actions that ensure “claimants with small 

claims may pool their claims and resources.” Waters, 2022 WL 3048376, at *5. This benefit is 

“particularly acute in wage and hour cases brought on behalf of minimum wage workers.” Id.

(quoting Arp, 2020 WL 6498956, at *6). There exists a “public interest” in ensuring that 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 14 of 17 PAGEID #: 2200
15 

attorneys who represent clients in class actions are adequately compensated, so that attorneys 

will continue to take on such cases in the future. Connectivity Sys. Inc. v. Nat’l City Bank, No. 

2:08-cv-1119, 2011 WL 292008, at *14 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 25, 2011). Like Waters, this class and 

collective action allows low-wage workers to recover unpaid wages, many of whom would likely 

not have been willing or able to pursue their claims individually. See Mullins, 2019 WL 275711, 

at *5. Accordingly, this factor also weighs in favor of awarding counsel their proposed 

percentage-of-the-fund amount. 

5. Complexity of Litigation 

As previously discussed, this case was a complex wage and hour class and collective 

action with unresolved legal questions and substantial factual investigation, to which Plaintiff’s 

Counsel brought unique expertise. This factor also weighs in favor of awarding Plaintiff’s 

Counsel the percentage-of-the-fund amount. 

6. Professional Skill of Counsel 

The attorneys in this matter were highly skilled. Plaintiff’s Counsel has prosecuted many 

wage-and-hour claims and had a “heightened difficulty of navigating a lawsuit that contained 

elements of a FLSA collective action and a Rule 23 class action.” Graham v. Chumleys of 

Columbus, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-136, 2016 WL 11787458, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2016) (quoting 

Dillworth, 2010 WL 776933 at *8). 

E. Expenses and Administration Fee 

Plaintiff’s Counsel seeks a reimbursement award of $8,993.29 for the Claim 

Administrator’s fees and $835.32 for expenses. (ECF No. 176 at 16). Plaintiff’s Counsel alleges 

these fees cover settlement notices, setting up Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs), distributing 

checks, filing fees, service of process, and Plaintiff’s portion of the mediator fee. (ECF No. 176 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 15 of 17 PAGEID #: 2201
16 

at 15). Under the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff’s Counsel will be entitled to reimbursement 

expenses that were reasonable and necessary in resolving a case. Mullins, 2019 WL 275711, at 

*5 (approving request for $6,310.55 in expenses resulting from filing fees, mediation costs, and 

class notice costs). These expenses are reasonable as they are in line with expenses and 

administration fees incurred in similar litigation. See e.g., Brandenburg, 2019 WL 6310376, at 

*7 (holding that $15,266.88 in litigation expenses were reasonable and necessary in litigating 

and resolving a wage and hour pizza delivery driver case). 

F. Class Representative Service Award 

Finally, the Court approves a $5,000 service award for Plaintiff (ECF No. 176 at 16). 

Neither class members nor Defendants object to the requested award. Courts recognize and grant 

“incentive awards [as] efficacious ways of encouraging member[s] of a class to become class 

representatives and rewarding individual efforts taken on behalf of the class.” Hogan v. 

Cleveland Ave Rests. Inc., No. 2:15-CV-2883, 2019 WL 6715976, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 10, 

2019) (quoting Hadix v. Johnson, 322 F. 3d 895, 897 (6th Cir. 2003)). Plaintiff argues that this 

award is warranted because the Plaintiff assumed substantial risk in advocating for the Class and 

Collective. (ECF No. 176 at 16). Plaintiff will also receive a service award of $5,000 in the 

Baker Defendants settlement, which together brings Plaintiff in line with what is typically 

awarded in these cases. (Id.); see also Chrismon v. Meadow Greens Pizza, No. 5:19-cv-155BO, 

2020 WL 3790866, at *6 (listing pizza delivery driver cases granting a $10,000 service award for 

the named plaintiff). Comprising about 1.2% of the global settlement funds, the two service 

awards do not significantly reduce the award to other class members, so there is no concern that 

such an award would be to the detriment of the class and collective members. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 16 of 17 PAGEID #: 2202
17 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, this Court GRANTS the Motion for Final Settlement 

Approval with the Precision Defendants for a total settlement amount of $300,000, including 

the request for attorneys’ fees amounting to $100,000, Claim Administrator fee reimbursement 

of $8,993.29, expenses of $835.32, and a class representative award of $5,000, and orders that 

this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The difference between the total settlement 

amount ($300,000) and the total fees awarded ($114,828.61)—$185,171.39—will be dispersed 

to the Class Members as outlined in the settlement agreement. (ECF No. 176-1) 

 As outlined in the settlement agreement, within thirty (30) days of Defendants making 

the first round of payments to the class, the parties will submit a stipulation dismissing, with 

prejudice, the Precision Defendants from the lawsuit. (ECF No. 176-1 at 8). This Court will 

retain jurisdiction over this action. The parties shall abide by all terms of the Settlement 

Agreement, which are incorporated herein, and this Order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

                                                      

      ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

DATED: October 31, 2022 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 181 Filed: 10/31/22 Page: 17 of 17 PAGEID #: 2203