Plaintiffs,

V.

MCCLAIN & COMPANY, INC., eta!.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER

CECCHI, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon the motion of Plaintiffs Michael Santa Lucia,

Frank Bruno, Ivan Casiano, Danny Brattoli, Joseph Tritto, Gabriel Scianna, and Dwayne

Webster (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to approve the settlement reached between the parties on

November 18, 2015. Plaintiffs’ Briefin Support ofthe Parties’ Settlement of Plaintiffs’ FLSA

Claims (“P1. Br.”), ECF No. 127. The Court decides this matter without oral argument pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. It appearing that:

1. Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant McClain & Company (“McClain & Co.”),

which is in the business ofrenting under-bridge access equipment and performing bridge

work, bridge repairs, and traffic control services for bridge and sign inspections.

Defendant Daniel McClain is the owner and president of McClain & Co., and Defendant

Mark Carucci was Regional Manager for the company’s New Jersey office, out of which

Plaintiffs worked. After Mark Carucci was terminated in 2010, Defendant Matthew

Pasquale took over Mark Carucci’s responsibilities as Regional Manager. Defendant

Alan Ladd was a supervisor at McClain & Co.’s New Jersey location.

1
also filed a Complaint against Defendants McClain & Co., Alan Ladd, and Mark Camcci

in New Jersey Superior Court. See Notice of Removal, Ex. A, ECF No. 1 in Case No.

11 -cv-93 1 (the “Bruno Matter”). Both cases were removed to this Court and Defendants

filed Answers. On October 12, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs in the Bmno Matter

leave to file an Amended Complaint, adding Gabriel Scianna as a Plaintiff, and

consolidated the Bruno and Santa Lucia Matters. See ECF No. 23.1 With leave of Court,Plaintiffs then filed a Second, and eventually a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”),

adding Daniel McClain as a Defendant. See ECF Nos. 32, 792

3. Plaintiffs contend they were not paid for their actual hours worked, but rather they were

compensated for a fixed amount oftime for each shift they worked, regardless of how

many hours they actually spent working. This compensation model was called the “Four

and Three Policy.” Plaintiffs allege that paying them according to the Four and Three

Policy violated the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (“NJWHL”), N.J. Stat. Ann.

§ 34:1 1-56a, et seq., the New Jersey Wage Payment Act (“NJWPA”), N.J. Stat. Ann.

§ 34:11-4.1, et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

They also bring claims under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), N.J.

‘Unless otherwise indicated, ECF citations refer to docket entries in the Santa Lucia

Matter, No. 11 -cv-930, the lead docket for the consolidated cases.

2 The Court denied Plaintiffs’ request to add an additional claim under the New Jersey

Prevailing Wage Act. Opinion dated August 23, 2013, ECF No. 77, at 19-22.

2
through the Court mediation program (appointing Paul Werther as the mediator) in 2014.

Both attempts were unsuccessful. Magistrate Judge Mark Falk was assigned to the case

in 2014 and permitted the parties to file motions for summary judgment. On September

26, 2014, three motions for summary judgement or partial summary judgment were filed.

ECF Nos. 101, 103, 104. The motions were administratively terminated on June 25,

2015 for the parties to pursue settlement discussions. On November 18, 2015, all

Plaintiffs and Defendants McClain & Co., Daniel McClain, and Mark Carucci

participated in a settlement conference before this Court and reached a full and final

settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims. P1. Br. at 1. On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiffs

moved for approval of the settlement agreement. ECF No. 127.

5. The Court approves the parties’ settlement because the compromise reached (1) was the

result of an adversarial process, where Plaintiffs were adequately represented;

(2) resolves a bona fide dispute; (3) is fair and reasonable to Plaintiffs; and (4) is not the

product of fraud or collusion on behalf of Defendants. Further, the Court approves the

parties’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs as reasonable.

6. First, Plaintiffs were adequately represented by counsel from the inception ofthis

litigation until the settlement was reached, which spanned the course of five years. P1.

Br. at 3. Plaintiffs’ counsel negotiated the settlement with Defendants’ counsel to resolve

Plaintiffs’ claims. çj, In exchange for a general release from all Plaintiffs, Defendants

3
recover for unpaid wages. Plaintiffs allege they were underpaid as a result ofthe Four

and Three Policy. It is unclear whether Plaintiffs claims are cognizable under the FLSA.

Notably, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on this point and, at the time

the settlement was reached the motion was pending before the Court. Additionally, thenumber of hours actually worked by Plaintiffs is a disputed fact and therefore it is unclear

whether Plaintiffs have valid overtime claims under the FLSA and NJWHL. Thus, the

amount of “wages due” to Plaintiffs is a fact in dispute. For these reasons, there is a bonafide dispute between the parties.

8. Third, the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable to Plaintiffs. Under the terms of

the settlement, Plaintiffs will receive a combined total of $185,400, which is more than

their estimated amount of unpaid wages, which is approximately $120,895. Id. at 4.Further, the parties placed the settlement on the record and the Court thoroughly

questioned each Plaintiff. Each Plaintiff confirmed he had entered into the Settlement

Agreement voluntarily, understood he was waiving his right to trial, believed the

settlement to be a fair and reasonable resolution of his claims, and understood the fees to

be paid to his counsel. Id. at 2.

Plaintiffs’ settlement proceeds will be distributed as follows: Plaintiff Michael Santa

Lucia will receive $63,000, Plaintiff Frank Bruno will receive $28,000, Plaintiff Ivan Casianowill receive $14,400, Plaintiff Danny Brattoli will receive $24,000, PlaintiffJoseph Tritto will

receive $12,000, Plaintiff Gabriel Scianna will receive $20,000, and Plaintiff Dwayne Websterwill receive $24,000. P1. Br. at 3.

4
executed an individual settlement agreement and executed a separate joint settlementagreement with respect to counsel fees. j The settlement agreement was placed on the

record and the Court fully examined each Plaintiff with respect to his satisfaction with the

settlement.

10. The Court also approves Plaintiffs’ counsels’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs in the

amount of $214,600. “tT]he percentage-of-recovery method has been accepted as anestablished approach to evaluating the award of attorneys’ fees in the Third Circuit.”

Brnmleyv. Camin Cargo Control, Inc., Nos. 08-1798, 10-2461 and 09-6128, 2012 WL

1019337, at *9 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2012). Fee awards have ranged from 19 percent to 45

percent of the settlement fund. In re Chickie’s & Pete’s Wage & Hour Litig., No. 12-

6820, 2014 WL 911718, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2014); see also Brumley, 2012 WL

1019337, at *12 (collecting cases where attorneys’ fees around 30 percent of settlement

funds were found reasonable). Plaintiffs’ counsels’ costs in this case amount to$44,352.99; therefore out ofthe $214,600 requested, Plaintiffs’ counsel requests$170,247.01 in attorneys’ fees. P1. Br. at 5. Counsel’s request for $170,247.01

represents approximately 42 percent ofthe total settlement amount and, thus, falls withinthe range ofreasonable allocations in the context of awards granted in other, similar

cases. Further, a lodestar cross-check supports counsels’ fee request because counsel hasspent approximately 2,450.16 attorney, paralegal, and support staff hours prosecuting this

5
the request for attorneys’ fees and costs.Accordingly, IT IS on this 8th day of December, 2015

ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for approval ofthe settlement agreement is

GRANTED as to all of the terms of the agreement; and it is further

ORDERED that the request for attorneys’ fees and costs is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall comply with all deadlines and terms in the settlement

agreement; and it is further

ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

C.

CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.

6