(;+,%,7

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-3 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:3660
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LAMONT DAVIS, NAKEA BLOUNT, 

and SHAMIKKAH SLAUGHTER, on 

behalf of themselves and all other 

persons similarly situated, known and 

unknown, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT 

SERVICES, LLC, 

Defendant. 

No. 19-cv-00680 

Judge Franklin U. Valderrama 

 

Final Approval Order 

This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval 

of Class Action Settlement and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees, Litigation Costs, 

Settlement Administration Costs, and Service Awards, the Court having reviewed 

and considered the motions, including all supporting documents, and the Court 

having conducted a final approval hearing on October 25, 2021, 

IT IS ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the 

settlement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1367. 

2. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Final Approval Order 

are defined in the Parties’ Settlement Agreement. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-3 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:3661 Case: 1:19-cv-00680 Document #: 130 Filed: 10/25/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:890
2 

3. The Court-approved Notice of Class Action Settlement and 

accompanying Claim Form (Notice) were distributed by the Settlement 

Administrator to Settlement Class Members by direct mail and, where available, by 

text message and email. The Settlement Administrator also established a publiclyavailable settlement website with the Notice, settlement documents, a mechanism to 

submit electronic Claim Forms, answers to frequently asked questions, and avenues 

for Settlement Class Members to seek more information. The Notice and the methods 

of distribution satisfy due process, the requirements of Rule 23(e)(1)(B) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, and constitute the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances. 

4. The Court grants final certification of the class that the Court previously 

certified for settlement purposes in its Preliminary Approval Order. The class is 

defined as follows: 

All hourly employees of Defendant who enrolled in or used a finger-scan 

timekeeping system while working for Defendant in Illinois between December 

18, 2013 and April 23, 2019, excluding those persons subject to individual 

arbitration agreements who did not opt-out of those arbitration agreements 

(“Settlement Class” or “Settlement Class Members”). 

5. Only one Settlement Class Member excluded himself from the 

Settlement and only one Settlement Class Member submitted an objection. 

6. Based on his valid request for exclusion, Settlement Class Member 

Anthony Nemeth is excluded from the Settlement Class. Mr. Nemeth is not bound by 

the Settlement Agreement. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-3 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3662 Case: 1:19-cv-00680 Document #: 130 Filed: 10/25/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:891
3 

7. The Court overrules the objection of Aida Echavez because it is untimely 

and does not question the fairness or adequacy of the Settlement. 

8. The Court finds the settlement memorialized in the Settlement 

Agreement and filed with the Court is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best 

interests of Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that: (a) the strength of the 

Settlement Class Representatives’ and Settlement Class Members’ claims weighed 

against the Defendant’s defenses and the complexity, length, and expense of further 

litigation support approval of the Settlement; (b) the Gross Fund of $5,418,000.00 as 

set forth in the Settlement Agreement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement 

of the claims; (c) the Settlement was reached pursuant to arm’s-length negotiations 

between the parties; (d) the support for the Settlement expressed by Settlement Class 

Counsel, who have significant experience representing parties in complex class 

actions, including those involving Biometric Information Privacy Act claims, weighs 

in favor of approval of the Settlement; (e) the absence of any meritorious objections 

to the Settlement by Settlement Class Members supports approval of the Settlement; 

and (f) the Action has progressed to a stage where the Court and the parties could 

evaluate the merits of the case, potential damages, and the probable course of future 

litigation. 

9. The Parties and the Settlement Administrator are ordered to comply 

with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-3 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:3663 Case: 1:19-cv-00680 Document #: 130 Filed: 10/25/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:892
4 

10. The Court awards $56,670.00 to the Settlement Administrator, 

Analytics Consulting LLC, for its work administering the Settlement, which is 

payable from the Gross Fund as described in the Settlement Agreement. 

11. The Settlement Administrator shall issue payments to all Settlement 

Class Participants from the Net Fund as described in the Settlement Agreement. The 

Settlement Administrator shall treat as timely all valid claims received by October 

13, 2021. Any claims received after October 13, 2021 are untimely and will not be 

paid. 

12. The Court awards Settlement Class Counsel $1,777,110.00 in attorneys’ 

fees and $28,249.66 in litigation costs, which are payable from the Gross Fund as 

described in the Settlement Agreement. 

13. The Court awards Settlement Class Representatives Lamont Davis, 

Nakea Blount, and Shamikkah Slaughter $10,000.00 each as Service Awards, which 

are payable from the Gross Fund as described in the Settlement Agreement. 

14. Funds from checks not cashed by Settlement Class Participants within 

the 150-day deadline shall be distributed to the Here to Help Fund, a Section 501(c)(3) 

charity. 

15. This matter is dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal shall 

automatically convert to one with prejudice seven (7) days after Plaintiffs file a 

declaration with the Court from the Settlement Administrator confirming that 

Defendant has fully funded the Gross Fund. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-3 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:3664 Case: 1:19-cv-00680 Document #: 130 Filed: 10/25/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:893
5

16. While this matter is dismissed without prejudice, the Court retains 

jurisdiction solely with respect to the interpretation, implementation, and 

enforcement of the terms of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement.

17. Once this case is dismissed with prejudice, the Court will not have 

jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. See Natkin v. Winfrey, 2015 WL 

8484511, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 8, 2015) (“The Seventh Circuit has declared in no 

uncertain terms: ‘[W]hen a suit is dismissed with prejudice, it is gone, and the district 

court cannot adjudicate disputes arising out of the settlement that led to the 

dismissal merely by stating that it is retaining jurisdiction.’”) (quoting Dupuy v. 

McEwen, 495 F.3d 807, 809 (7th Cir. 2007)).

Dated: October 25, 2021

United States District Judge

Franklin U. Valderrama

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 197-3 Filed: 03/31/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:3665 Case: 1:19-cv-00680 Document #: 130 Filed: 10/25/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:894