IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ COMBINED MOTION FOR FINAL 

APPROVAL OF RULE 23 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, SERVICE 

AWARDS, AND REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

Before the Court is Plaintiffs BNVS Transport LLC’s and Mein & Meen 

Trucking, Inc.’s (“Plaintiffs”) Combined Motion for Final Approval of Class Action 

Settlement, Service Awards, and Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. No 

opposition or objection has been filed to these Motions or the Settlement Agreement. 

The Court has reviewed and considered the terms and conditions of the proposed 

Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, a copy of which has been 

submitted with the Motion for Preliminary Approval [70-1]. The Court has 

jurisdiction to consider the Motion and the relief requested therein, and venue is 

proper before the Court. Now, after due deliberation, and good and sufficient cause 

appearing; 

THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND ORDERS:

1. Capitalized terms used in this Order that are not otherwise identified 

BNVS Transport LLC and MEIN & MEEN 

TRUCKING, INC., individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

C&K TRUCKING, LLC, 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-CV-04305

Judge John Robert Blakey

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 85 Filed: 02/22/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1690
herein have the meaning assigned to them in the Settlement Agreement.

2. The Court has now considered Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the 

proposed class action settlement by weighing the strength of the case, balanced 

against the extent of settlement offer; the complexity, length, and expense of further 

litigation; the amount of opposition to the settlement; the reaction of members of the 

class to the settlement; the opinion of competent counsel; and the stage of the 

proceedings and the amount of discovery completed, among other factors. See Wong 

v. Accretive Health, Inc., 773 F.3d 859, 863 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court concludes based 

on these factors, as well as the terms of the settlement itself and the history of the 

arms-length negotiations that resulted in an agreement of these terms, that the 

settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Id. at 862. 

3. The Court has also considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reasonable 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Service Awards. The Court finds 

that Class Counsel’s requested fees of 1/3 the net settlement amount are reasonable 

under the applicable percentage-of-the-fund approach. George v. Kraft Foods Global, 

Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166816, at *11 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2012) (citing In re 

Synthroid Mktg. Litig., 325 F.3d 974, 979-80 (7th Cir. 2003); Schulte v. Fifth Third 

Bank, 805 F. Supp. 2d 560, 598 n.27 (N.D. Ill. 2011); In re Comdisco Sec. Litig., 150 

F. Supp. 2d 943, 948 (N.D. Ill. 2001)). The Court further finds that the the requested 

service awards are appropriate under the applicable standard. See Cook v. Niedert, 

142 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 1998).

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 85 Filed: 02/22/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:1691
Certification of the Settlement Class

4. The Court finds, for purposes of settlement, that the requirements of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and other laws applicable to final settlement 

approval of class actions have been satisfied, and the Court hereby certifies, for 

settlement purposes only, the following Class:

All current or former owner-operators based in Illinois who signed one 

of Defendant C&K Trucking LLC’s standardized Independent 

Contractor Agreements and provided services pursuant to that 

agreement(s) at any time from July 22, 2010, to July 29, 2022.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)

5. Numerosity: Plaintiffs meet the criteria of Rule 23(a)(1) because there 

are approximately 984 Class Members, making joinder impractical. Additionally, 

these Class Members are ascertainable through Defendant’s records.

6. Common Questions: Plaintiffs meet the criteria of Rule 23(a)(2) because 

the class claims turn upon answers to overarching common questions regarding 

Defendant’s policies and procedures that are capable of class-wide resolution for 

settlement purposes. The Court finds that for settlement purposes, the common 

questions raised by the Class Members include whether Defendant’s standard 

contract violates the Truth in Leasing Act Regulations pertaining to deductions and 

charge-backs; and whether Defendant’s uniform pay practices violate its contractual 

obligations as to the percentage of revenue it must pay Class Members for their 

services, among others. 

7. Typicality: Plaintiffs meet the Rule 23(a)(3) criteria for settlement 

purposes because they assert the same types of injuries arising from the same conduct 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 85 Filed: 02/22/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:1692
by Defendant as the absent Class Members. All Class Members performed the same 

or similar work for Defendant, signed the same or similar standard contract with 

Defendant, and were subject to the same or similar allegedly unlawful pay policies, 

practices, and procedures. 

8. Adequacy: Plaintiffs meet the Rule 23(a)(4) criteria because they do not 

have any conflicts with the Class, are committed to representing the Class Members’ 

interests, and are represented by counsel with extensive expertise in class action 

litigation, including in cases involving pay in the transportation industry. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)

9. The Court finds, for purposes of settlement only, that the requirements 

of Rule 23(b)(3) are met because there are common questions of fact and law 

regarding Defendant’s policies and procedures that in the context of a settlement, 

predominate over any individual issues. Moreover, a class action settlement is 

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the 

controversy because the injury suffered by each member of the Class, while 

meaningful on an individual basis, is not of such magnitude as to make the 

prosecution of individual actions against Defendant economically feasible, and the 

class action settlement device provides the benefits of single adjudication, economies 

of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

10. For the purposes of facilitating the settlement, the Court designates 

Valinda Stephens and Bernard Shurn of Plaintiff BNVS Trucking LLC, and Damien 

Muhammad of Plaintiff Mein & Meen Trucking, Inc. as Class Representatives. Also, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 85 Filed: 02/22/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:1693
for the purpose of facilitating the settlement, the Court designates Stacey Vucko of 

Vucko Law LLP and Joshua Konecky and Sarah McCracken of Schneider Wallace 

Cottrell Konecky LLP as Class Counsel. 

Final Approval of Settlement, Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and 

Service Awards

11. The Court hereby grants final approval of the terms and conditions 

contained in the Settlement Agreement. 

12. The Court finds that: (1) the settlement amount is fair and reasonable 

to the Class Members when balanced against the potential outcome of further 

litigation relating to class certification, liability and damages issues, and potential 

appeals; (2) the Parties conducted sufficient formal and informal discovery, 

investigation, and research to enable them to reasonably evaluate the strengths, risks 

and merits for class certification, the underlying merits of the legal claims, and the 

range of potential damages; (3) settlement at this stage will avoid substantial costs, 

delay, and risks that would be presented by the further prosecution of the litigation; 

and (4) the proposed Settlement has been reached as the result of informed, serious, 

and non-collusive negotiations between the Parties.

13. For all these reasons, the Court concludes that the Settlement is “fair, 

adequate, and reasonable.” Wong, 773 F.3d at 862. 

14. The Court confirms its previous appointment of JND Legal 

Administration as the Settlement Administrator.

15. The Court finds that due and proper notice of the Settlement and its 

terms was provided to all Class Members, including notice of the right to object to the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 85 Filed: 02/22/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:1694
proposed Settlement, the right to opt out, the right to dispute his or her workweeks, 

the right to appear and be heard in person or by counsel at the Fairness Hearing, and 

the right to object to Plaintiffs’ application for attorneys’ fees and costs and for a 

service award. The Court finds that the notice provided was the best means of 

providing notice to the Class Members under the circumstances. The Court further 

finds that it was due and sufficient notice of the Settlement and the Fairness Hearing 

to all persons affected by and/or entitled to participate in the Settlement or the 

Fairness Hearing, in full compliance with the requirements of due process and 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), (e)(1), and (h)(1). 

16. No class member has objected to the Settlement, the motion for 

attorneys’ fees and costs, or the motion for service awards.

17. No class member has requested to opt out of the Settlement.

18. The Court finds that the requested attorneys’ fees and costs are fair, 

reasonable, and appropriate, and approves the award of attorneys’ fees in the amount

of one million, sixty thousand, seven hundred thirty-nine dollars and seventy-one 

cents ($1,060,739.71) and attorneys’ costs in the amount of forty-seven thousand, 

seven hundred eighty dollars and eighty-six cents ($47,780.86).

19. The Court further finds that the requested service awards for the Class 

Representatives are fair, reasonable, and appropriate, and approves those awards in 

the amount of $20,000 each to Settlement Class Representatives Valinda Stephens, 

Bernard Shurn, and Damien Muhammad.

20. The Court approves payment to the Settlement Administrator, JND 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 85 Filed: 02/22/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:1695
Legal Administration, of $60,000 out of the Gross Settlement Amount, based upon 

the Declaration of Andrew U. Choi from the Settlement Administrator, verifying the 

administrator’s reasonable costs in fulfilling the settlement administration in this 

case.

21. The Court finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are fair, 

reasonable, and adequate and hereby approves the settlement on a final basis 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). Specifically, the Court approves 

in full the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Joshua 

Konecky in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Approval [70-1]. The Parties shall 

comply with and implement the Settlement Agreement according to its terms.

22. The Settlement is not an admission by Defendant, nor is this Order a 

finding of the validity of any claims or allegations asserted in this action or of any 

wrongdoing by Defendant. Furthermore, the Settlement is not a concession by 

Defendant or any of the other Released Parties and shall not be used as an admission 

of any fault, omission, or wrongdoing by Defendant or any of the other Released 

Parties. Neither this Order, the Settlement nor any document referred to herein, nor 

any action taken to carry out the Settlement is, may be construed as, or may be used 

as, an admission by or against Defendant or any of the other Released Parties of any 

admission of fault, culpability, negligence, wrongdoing, or liability whatsoever. 

23. Defendant shall have no further liability in this matter for costs, 

expenses, interest, attorneys’ fees, or for any other charge, expense, or liability, except 

as provided for in the Settlement. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 85 Filed: 02/22/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:1696
24. The Class Representative and all Settlement Class Members are 

permanently barred and enjoined from prosecuting against Defendants, and the 

Released Parties, who are defined in Section 1.34 of the Agreement on any of the 

Released Class Claims, defined in Section 6.2 of the Agreement.

25. The Court retains jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from 

or related to the implementation of the Settlement Agreement or this Order.

26. The Court sets this matter for a hearing on November 15, 2023 at 

11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1203 to confirm implementation of the settlement and 

final dismissal of the action. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2023 Entered:

 

 ____________________________ 

 John Robert Blakey

United States District Judge

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 85 Filed: 02/22/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:1697