Brent v. Advanced Medical Management, LLC
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ANTHONY BRENT, et al., . Plaintiffs, *
v. CIVIL NO. JKB-23-3254 ADVANCED MEDICAL * MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., | . Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 36) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs and for a Service Award (ECF No. 35). The Court held a Fairness Hearing on December 11, 2024. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and will grant in part the Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs and for a Service Award. I. Factual and Procedural Background Named Plaintiffs Anthony Brent, Oluwakemi Ade-Fosudo, James Buechler, Desiree Walker, Confidence Dike, and Tyler Woerner, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, brought claims against Defendants Advanced Medical Management, LLC (“AMM”) and Points Group, LLC (“Points Group”). (See generally ECF No, 2; ECF No. 1, JKB-23-cv-1905.) AMM provides operational, administrative, and technical healthcare management services to healthcare organizations. (ECF No. 1 § 28.) Points Group provides strategy, consulting, and □
marketing services to businesses and healthcare providers, including AMM. (/d. § 3.) Plaintiffs (and the class they seek to represent) were patients at AMM or AMM affiliates, and had provided
AMM with various items of personal information. (/d. § 30.) Due to a data breach, Plaintiffs’ personal information was accessed by unauthorized third parties. (/d. § 31.) The claims in this □ case arise from this unauthorized access, and Plaintiffs brought, inter alia, claims of negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. (See generally id.) The procedural history of this case is somewhat complicated given the multiple related federal and state court cases that have been dismissed, consolidated, and removed to this Court. In short, and as is relevant for purposes of the pending Motion, litigation relating to the claims in this case began in July 2023. (See ECF No. 29-1 at 8.) That month, Plaintiffs Ade-Fosudo, Buechler, Woerner, and Walker each filed cases in this Court, and Plaintiff Brent filed an action in state court. (/d.) In August 2023, Plaintiffs Ade-Fosudo, Buechler, and Walker dismissed their federal actions and refiled in state court. (/d. at 9.) Plaintiff Woerner did not dismiss his federal court action, which remains pending. (/d.) In October 2023, the state court granted a motion to consolidate the Ade-Fosudo, Buechler, and Walker cases into the Brent case. (Id.) On November 30, 2023, the consolidated Brent case—which is the instant case—was removed to this Court. (/d.) Thus, the two remaining cases are the Woerner action aad the consolidated Brent action.! This action has been stayed since December 6, 2023, approximately a week after it was removed to this Court. The parties sought the stays to resolve certain procedural issues and to “focus their time and energy toward the upcoming mediation.” (ECF No. 5 at 3) The Court granted the Motion. (ECF No. 6.) Before settlement negotiations, the parties exchanged informal discovery regarding the breach. (ECF No. 29-1 at 10; ECF No. 30 at 7, 10.) The parties also report that they exchanged
' The Woerner action—initially filed in this Court in July 2023—has been stayed since September 2023. (See ECF Nos. 10-21, JKB-23-cv-01905.) Plaintiff Woerner “is also a party to the Settlement Agreement, which resolves the claims asserted in both the Brent Action and the Woerner Action.” (ECF No. 29-1 at 9n.7.) The Court will therefore separately issue an order in the Woerner case closing it.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ANTHONY BRENT, et al., . Plaintiffs, *
v. CIVIL NO. JKB-23-3254 ADVANCED MEDICAL * MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., | . Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 36) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs and for a Service Award (ECF No. 35). The Court held a Fairness Hearing on December 11, 2024. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and will grant in part the Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs and for a Service Award. I. Factual and Procedural Background Named Plaintiffs Anthony Brent, Oluwakemi Ade-Fosudo, James Buechler, Desiree Walker, Confidence Dike, and Tyler Woerner, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, brought claims against Defendants Advanced Medical Management, LLC (“AMM”) and Points Group, LLC (“Points Group”). (See generally ECF No, 2; ECF No. 1, JKB-23-cv-1905.) AMM provides operational, administrative, and technical healthcare management services to healthcare organizations. (ECF No. 1 § 28.) Points Group provides strategy, consulting, and □
marketing services to businesses and healthcare providers, including AMM. (/d. § 3.) Plaintiffs (and the class they seek to represent) were patients at AMM or AMM affiliates, and had provided
AMM with various items of personal information. (/d. § 30.) Due to a data breach, Plaintiffs’ personal information was accessed by unauthorized third parties. (/d. § 31.) The claims in this □ case arise from this unauthorized access, and Plaintiffs brought, inter alia, claims of negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. (See generally id.) The procedural history of this case is somewhat complicated given the multiple related federal and state court cases that have been dismissed, consolidated, and removed to this Court. In short, and as is relevant for purposes of the pending Motion, litigation relating to the claims in this case began in July 2023. (See ECF No. 29-1 at 8.) That month, Plaintiffs Ade-Fosudo, Buechler, Woerner, and Walker each filed cases in this Court, and Plaintiff Brent filed an action in state court. (/d.) In August 2023, Plaintiffs Ade-Fosudo, Buechler, and Walker dismissed their federal actions and refiled in state court. (/d. at 9.) Plaintiff Woerner did not dismiss his federal court action, which remains pending. (/d.) In October 2023, the state court granted a motion to consolidate the Ade-Fosudo, Buechler, and Walker cases into the Brent case. (Id.) On November 30, 2023, the consolidated Brent case—which is the instant case—was removed to this Court. (/d.) Thus, the two remaining cases are the Woerner action aad the consolidated Brent action.! This action has been stayed since December 6, 2023, approximately a week after it was removed to this Court. The parties sought the stays to resolve certain procedural issues and to “focus their time and energy toward the upcoming mediation.” (ECF No. 5 at 3) The Court granted the Motion. (ECF No. 6.) Before settlement negotiations, the parties exchanged informal discovery regarding the breach. (ECF No. 29-1 at 10; ECF No. 30 at 7, 10.) The parties also report that they exchanged
' The Woerner action—initially filed in this Court in July 2023—has been stayed since September 2023. (See ECF Nos. 10-21, JKB-23-cv-01905.) Plaintiff Woerner “is also a party to the Settlement Agreement, which resolves the claims asserted in both the Brent Action and the Woerner Action.” (ECF No. 29-1 at 9n.7.) The Court will therefore separately issue an order in the Woerner case closing it.
~ See Wein as □□□ fee Sree ee ae aL te: □ DR 2, EOS amg pall at ae ee Core ae ey □ □□ he ee an Fes wale ag ae Tee ie fees Sard ee eA toe. en ete a □□□ □ gS at See Saree a, ; ent Beeee Se Pi eg To Waawiis wae ae ye ; See xe eee Oe Tes tg po ae ee Pw US x a ee ghee □□□□ ni Baie path Re he, Fe? LS □ Foe es uae ; oes □□ □ Ga eB x gh Aah Behe ees pasa aes ee Hates oat? Smears pen aise □ □ eee OE as ee ee Se Bia ee ieee cnet ee Sete rete Recess Pages rat rosgete Sen □□□ □□□ eget > ap dees PA lee Pm eo ee ea LEH, ESE oak ee □□□ □□□ a ae hse = Se pAbiiese: wigeitricss Mesa emcee eee gee at = sitael □□□ □□ 5 Bie STE unt “i a ee elles at ‘ries oo re Es Se ete en gee ee ae =: (Te wae pice □□ eee Beate dpe ye yar aoe PS a ie anaes ES Ge Pen. Ved ot FARE Sey oe ee hee. a eee Pee =a ane Segal eters nee fai PS Sie Stee So ghee | ke $e Seawes reves SER Ses. au lag eT? sa) Sek fies” Vieeen eat Fat See Stet es ey SESS eee | Behe Se aN ep fee eEas Se ere eed beeen a » SLA aes = Ptpey gett A | meme ee aN Bed ee ke □□ 5p ieee se as ES □□ □ □ : Eo ESSE See Bel ae: ogee a pl se = mh logt pata deta as □□□ □□ □□ □□□ aoe □ ees 2 Se eae Se Fs he Fora St poe Sake eae fee cw Fy ue a □□□□□□ ht SS 2 cua eee a nme et gee aS eS eee cee! ewes Togas an A wt = □ □□□□ = tres Bias name SHS He Eo atacand Sue □□ Sarge ae A pi. cone : oes Ua ae eee a verge EO ie ae lige cei eae eee, oo ee ee So ee oa oe Seger eae 7 ee ae eerie of oe a fate ee Pes cyiea fo) RS. BU bh re ce ee □□ □ □□ □□ gear □ ange peat See eo Pee eee Wietiay See ne shad eg ee et” Efe □□□ □ ee, 25 trdam Te eS □□□ a tees oe Ae i RR anced Spine PE =a. □ □□ He ad i fa, een re □□□ le cy ale ee Se Ses ee eee eee ait ee <8 ey Se oe eS uh gage □□□ en = aaa ne arts 2 ne Sates ap ik, a 4 gh Ao □□□ □□□ eh 7 Sith ore A eae □□□ a. = Sanat fe. Ee bc Apa □□ Fees, Shee a Hewes tnt wie int epee □□ □□ □□□ □□□ ie! ae got ee ee foie ores fae inte Sat PR ae A □□□ Be ape: PE □□ □□□ ean hoe ee aa Sage et BA eeu a. sei See > tatie ee ee ES = Bes □□ □□□ is eye ees pf fie sors DURE re ses ow wh aes oh = - at □□□ □ □ Speses 2) See a Aa re □□ Seu ae Sr iy See sera Se at? ee Ey Brak tpeta daub ceaae ets □□ □□□ □□□ tape ale 8 tive ees Saeeee 1 Tea ea es a) eee Seba eee □□ igre seahet.. □□ Sees Sa eet aa ce pee 4 a aS eee Des ea eats Bie he PE tg | □□ □□ □□ eee te □□ □□□ Ee Sr ty hes Rabelais 0 ic) a se SE ae □□□ □ eter. Ue ech eats ti gly SRP Saher ae Gon. oe ghia = □□□□□ pean roe eae OW ie Blipis uF A “Sane ee Releri aay Site, Se pina □ a: □□□ 1 □□□ id as, “ERT ee Hee ae oe et fae ee ages hae Beta Sere gee” Bi Eee te □ ace OS ee SE Para ey eS ke SS 2s) ea eS ate ihe s ea senees CaPhege □□□□ □□□ gies el By PoP a tet wel ba ig oS ean SF cane aetaeg LAE □□ □□□ ear De ea □□□ □□ □ : wate a ig Ae one cree SES RE EL ee Ri Pet Ge ee ES Bad □□□□□ nee SoS “aL ay. CEE es: ee OR ee = eee Take ree a a ie □□ □□ Or RSS” SCRE Mg Cae Bee Sn ere Weenie Meek fetes |. a set ee eee □□□ □□□□ □□□ □□ Sat ESE Te bh □□ ee Oe eS, Sb Scen see eee a a “BESe “2iiese a Pg see □□□ □□ Sty Sees MES A ee Ejeet tat gi hans eee Seely eT aS, "2 □ att ek ae □ □ Beara Oe hg Soy ie, | Sees OSE Spat cairns RE ae hase ie ae S25 □ □□ : eRe 5 ae Utah a ar pas. velty Sere ahs eS fe? etwvanTea Ae 7 pares □□ □□□□ A pe ae meats i Fs athena Soest) ee ee ehee “of oo aie If fot = 3 E 4 a3 eater. □□□ ga aes Pepe Pare Spoke ea □□□ fee page □ hee ae Se 7 Be □□□ □□ □□□ eae fer aS See. era eae See a 25 Pattigby ne ely DEBE ie BA HF Fo □□ □ a, Eee ants : Peak eee he opal See. Bo ae eater ree tae { CEE □□ □□□ □ Wa, Seg (ae Be Se 3 el net ee Paulo 2 pes ees SE oe ET Pe Ge Ton 2 oP eceee” □□□ □□ es ee ie Sue esgic ee te he Re Sot nts og ‘ Pies □□ □□□ □□ tet □□ : pS deh Se Lie ae. Cea BA Ree ate □□□ See uss BA eet ae □□□□ □□□ □□□ hae “3 Pe ana tees See eae ee ee gee on r= □□ 3 a pet ys □□□ □□□ See ata SE OTe □□□ eee” Shea cepa oa Buy vie ha? ees PPPS RR □□□ = □□□□ ee = i “Sha sie aie. □□□ os But oe □□ ee Taped SE aS eee “em □ ater □□□ ae fran □□□ eae gh eee Eee, tre ay a, ees Site ay ag) See □□□ Re: nd Seeheo Paces Sp et pee eeeeL ee fat Rigs rae Sees aye ees oe : Te ody fy agitate oz ORS Ae a eee gee? ae i a Las ibe ean Moe? =. LF elgg tite Sere gs Fat ac eee eg iy sieve eter pagse = Pea heey □□ on not □ APOENG: ee ee oo eae ore cccgleirity 2 2h 1b aaa teat es oe vet - <0 □ □□ Seren ce! nay, ae oo ae □□□ mgt og PES. HS: PA a BS pea Me. Sees . Sou | SAE reat Mig? □□ shas ak Hoh pares ee Heer ee 7 □□ □ yl eetg ieee eg ae rE ee Zen ee EE SPP Bee aS eetes □□□□ □ □ AEA 28 “roa TERE ater “Siddes jen EY “igh hee eee A pwr pee =: Pope Hie Ee ee: □□□□□ □□□ □ = Bika tf “eS & wat Sy SFE to Scene irae el aa ee) Be EASE Bente: SE Re mets |, bose □□ oF aise ee eS eerie LOOSEN Fst. I tenia □□□ ee : : ipa tate ads eh, SUE Aye ees ea | ee Be Lge soe MigeBeapey □□□□ □□□□□ oe 8 etek, rings“ apis yes eeee! See ac Seen yea! epee Sie Fy 2s □□□□ □□ □□□ sarge: = ays ty ee Ey Rae heed | ieee ae Fe see ee eer Sea ts ee ee ue oe ag ithe Sy □□□□ we □□□□ a eam □□□ Fe Se SoM ae BP at a ee sien «2 ect ein tee
detailed mediation statements, and participated in a “full day, in-person mediation of this matter with the Hon. Diane M. Welsh.” (ECF No. 29-1 at 11; see also ECF No. 29-2 (Declaration of Hon. Diane M. Welsh).) Plaintiffs explain that “[a]fter multiple rounds of arms’-length negotiations that lasted well into the evening hours, the Parties were unable to reach a resolution,” but that “Judge Welsh presented the Parties with a mediator’s proposal, which Plaintiffs and AMM accepted.” (ECF No. 29-11 at 11; see also ECF No. 30 at 7 (AMM explaining that “[t]he in- person, day-long mediation was hard-fought, and the negotiations were extensive”).) On February 5, 2024, the parties reported to the Court that they “reached an agreement in principle to settle at the Mediation and to fully and finally resolve all claims in this action and the Woerner action.” (ECF No. 13 at 2.) They continued negotiations, and finalized and signed the Settlement Agreement on April 18, 2024. (See ECF No. 29-1 at 11.) On April 18, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. (ECF No. 19.) As described in more detail in the Court’s Weseexodine and Order denying that Motion, the Court found that it could not provisionally certify the Settlement Class, nor could it find that the settlement was fair, reasonable, or adequate based upon the inadequate briefing provided by the Plaintiffs. (See generally ECF Nos. 23, 24.) The Court permitted Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion. (/d.) Plaintiffs did so on June 7, 2024. (ECF No. 29.) The Court granted that Motion, and set in the December 11, 2024 Fairness Hearing and other associated dates. (ECF Nos. 33-34.) II. Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement In their Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Plaintiffs seek: (1) the final certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes; (2) the final appointment of the Class Representatives; (3) the final appointment of Class Counsel; (4) a finding that the Notice met the Rule 23(c)(2)(B) requirements; and (5) a finding that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate. (See generally ECF No. 36.) A. Settlement Approval Procedure and Standards Approval of a class action settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 proceeds in two stages. At the first stage, the court examines the terms of the proposed settlement to determine whether it is “within the range of possible approval, subject to further consideration at the final fairness hearing after interested parties have had an opportunity to object.” CASA de Md., Inc. Arbor Realty Tr., Inc., Civ. No. DKC-21-1778, 2023 WL 6125531, at *4 (D. Md. Sept. 19, 2023) (citation and quotation marks omitted). At the second stage, after a final fairness hearing, the Court approves the settlement if the proponents of the settlement satisfy their burden of showing that it is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Jd. The Court has preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement (ECF Nos. 33, 34) and has held a fairness hearing. B. Class Certification Plaintiffs propose the certification of the following Settlement Class: “all individuals who reside in the United States who: (i) had private health information exposed in the Cyberattack involving Defendants; and (ii) [were] sent notification of the Cyberattack from AMM or [were] subject to the notice published in the media and on AMM’s website.” (ECF No. 36-1 at 11.) There are 308,560 individuals in the Settlement Class. (/d.) The Court previously provisionally certified this Settlement Class for settlement purposes. (ECF Nos. 33-34.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 sets out the requirements for the certification of a class action. “A plaintiff seeking class certification bears the burden of proving the proposed class - complies with the requirements of Rule 23.” Gray v. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc., 444 F. App’x 698, 700 (4th Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court has explained that the “specifications of [Rule 23]— those designed to protect absentees by blocking unwarranted or overbroad class definitions— demand undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Leas ae EAR Ae airape tn □□ =e ete wR ee eae eae □□ AT eS Seca Smt TS poe os □□□□ □□□ eo Sg ae ee Re ine Ge ieee ewer. rt Syed ee. = □□ tee vane, se EN eae ao 1 oe eae ee ee me yl ef ets view Eee Rip BORE FO Ae Ree peo eR ote Ce eecnetet □□ ae □□□□ =e □□ we □□ SS ie dt at Besse ay te iG □□□□ ete are ae eee Rees Se eS Sees ar Pe Se Spee □ □□ es, des ed eg ek Se ce nO a Sgt eee a a eh Sa ee ae eee a pi hE cle Se eS □□□ □□ eg, ae Bape Baas Hol mye RS ee tees get Senge foes/ie eee! age ee. See wick oe ap □□ es ot SRA Se i ee eee ae ate Te ae eds oot, © gl een □□□ pores ee 2 20S EE ee 2 ard sae a a se Sa ees gt □□□□□ □□□ ee Sig □□ nee a eg □□ Aree eee ges MC SS ee □□□ Poneto ey sea USE ah rn, Sie Si Be □□□ ae oie Gua lea a Wee: eae se oa ee ase fe See oat □□ □□ □□□ eerie To gest ee ae = Reese en ec a Ses = BOE OR □□ amet es ee Be yl, □□ □ □ esa a Eig ahha Sepa Sif tees ARS ee AGG See □□ gs ete □ □□□ aa □□□ Sere □□ □□ eed ee AE A ea a erent SES aE □□□ Pelee Sel nes Me See Sete eae Res ears fees ESSE eigenen □□□ □□ □□□ □□ ewes oe eee RS Rs ae a ae eae ots gate eines eee □□ oe ee SR, : Sesh ere. OS, ae □□ BENT, on ieee oa See sie. se pe ee ge hse vs ESE et een ee PU “Sek aS «3 □□ □□□□ □□ eh. yee ee ee eee AED Ty ea 2 WipaNan, aed Reve eces: AGRA SegBrey. Sirhan □□ I eget oe rraeee BOS Pease he DS Gt SeaBt ee SETS 2 ere Son □□ □□ erga SS So Ree ae Re ime ae ees wee SUM Fee eee sie Me Ree St, ie eee NE EES fT Toes a cpa err □□□ alee Ea i Se. □□ Da Sie eee te See ae ee aa ohare □□□ □□□ □□□ nate i, RES xe 2 □□□ ee Be Fe oe Se oe □□□ Ngee fie tS face te aati meee □□□ 3 Rpagetirens ans) dy tape eee Gas cele Gee ng eee ot lade eae □□□□□ □□□□□□ ey Sh gee ey □□□ gs igs soge a eee a nee Saree te : 23 ae □□□ ME re sete erga I 2 Cage □□ □□□ earn ee eee gee ape OT eee panes See pone: Se aise + gee AEs er ene aie 2 a ae EN po □□□□□ □□ □□□ Sore Big Ci Ss vias A eee ay Teena Bybee Makes: pa tetas erik Re ae ora wu aren □ □□ ek □□ epee gre be oe Aer ot AND THE IMR ate Pee Se eal 4, Mee a2 □ soe te a syfacP cS re eee eye eee ah. nS Peed □□ AaReiiar ees oe wee □□□ □□□ □□□ a □□□ one hia BRP eee pea net etre □ SPU CEE RE □□ a ce □□ ee erat □□ Se Se agree a, 7 ce. Seog □□ = eer Ties Gonos Mh cee ies ae oy Sie Reh ee eal ine ete “i re ait □□ gait aaa S Re eee. ia □□ ir bree ar, ond aa □□ goals □□□□□□ cede, ...% “an eee See ae ee gee ee eee. a eorert cer ‘el ime pa Eee aedee + ce RE fe ae □□□ Ee Oe) eet eR a er A □□ □□□□ □ □□ ci Se □□□ sey Pee ee ee, Sa 2 eine nes eee re. =v oh RE □□ Seed ae □□ □□□ 4 es, Ee ek EO LE LOE Se See te Ae gad iS ee Eee Seale ua fe Biceee re se a Se ee esas Seca eaten a ee ae = SPSS, SS Se ee oo gah ae ean age es Me □ Veet ; a fa SB a ws, □□ □□ □□ □□ woneta S| Ee eae ot ha ieee Rare A ia aes oe pee □□ ts Sie Eat ay □□ □□ ed ced ge ee kU on eatin.” aero ey eat EE PE Tae a a re ee es ee en tary Saale teme □□□ □□ □□□□ ogee Ee Bes AE ie Se2) og ERO, NG a Eg BE PETES Re □□□ □□□ □□ ae Mgt, Ca: ON, BAA ote Speen bear Sen nr ents Gert ener easy eS oe eee, Bee oe □□□ □□ ees. no Te See ‘agen See “ease So Weitie=. ai. aie EES □□ □□ bo fe 72 Se ee ee oc a a ee a Siege teachE □□□ abas Se ee Bet □□□□ □□□□□ deat) A AE oe See auth ic eee a) eigee bee STE? Be □□□ ee eres Cee nN che ees ay eee ted | enGeret = meena Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997). In its prior Memorandum and Order preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class, the Court found that the Class satisfied the Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) requirements for certification. (See ECF No. 33 at 4-7; ECF No. 34 § 1.) The Court incorporates by reference that analysis, and concludes that nothing changes it. The Court continues to find that the Settlement Class meets the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of Rule 23. The Settlement Class will be finally certified. C. Class Representatives and Class Counsel The Court previously appointed Plaintiffs Brent, Ade-Fosudo, Buechler, Walker, Dike, and Woerner as Class Representatives, and appointed David Lietz of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips . Grossman, PLLC and Courtney L. Weiner of the Law Office of Courtney Weiner, PLLC as Class Counsel. (See ECF No. 33 at 13-14; ECF No. 34 § 3.) The Court continues to find these appointments appropriate, and they will be maintained through the entry of final judgment. D. Notice Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1) requires that the Court “direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.” In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h)(1) states that “[nJotice of the motion [for an award of attorney fees] must be served on all parties and, for motions by class counsel, directed to class members in a reasonable manner.” Notice “need only ‘fairly apprise the prospective members of the class of the terms of the proposed settlement and of the options that are open to them in connection with the proceedings.’” McAdams v. Robinson, 26 F.4th 149, 158 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 114 (2d Cir. 2005)). Further, to satisfy due process, notice “must be ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [absent class members] of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Jd. at 157-58 (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). But such “[nJotice need not be perfect, and all class members do not have to actually receive notice in order to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and due process.” In re Mut. Funds Inv. Litig., Civ. No. 04-15863, 2011 WL 1102999, at *1 (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2011). The Court previously approved the proposed notice. (ECF No. 33 at 12-13; ECF No. 34 {| 7.) Notice was provided in the manner approved by the Court, and proceeded as follows: On July 29, 2024, Angeion caused the Short Form Notice to be disseminated via email to the 8,060 Settlement Class Members who had valid email addresses on the Class List (the “Email Notice”). Of the 8,060 Email Notices sent, 7,466 were delivered and 594 could not be delivered. The 594 Settlement Class Members whose Email Notice could not be delivered all had a corresponding mailing address. On July 31, 2024, Angeion also caused the Short Form Notice to be mailed via the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) first-class mail, postage prepaid, to 308,560 Settlement Class Members and re-mailed to forwarding addresses if returned undeliverable. Short Form Notices returned without a forwarding address were subjected to an address verification search (“skip trace”) in an attempt to locate an updated address and, as a result, of the 68,508 Short Form Notices returned as undeliverable, 51,845 were re-mailed to updated addresses. As such, Angeion has reason to believe the Notice Plan reached a total of 302,689, or 98%, of the 308,560 unique records provided to it in AMM’s Class List. (ECF No. 36-1 at 14-15 (citations omitted).) In addition to this individualized notice, Angeion created a settlement website and established a toll-free help line. (/d. at 15.) Plaintiffs explain that Angeion received 10,057 claim forms, which represents a claims rate of 3.27%. The Court finds the claims rate of 3.27% to be modest, although it compares favorably to those breach-related class actions cited by Plaintiffs.2 The Court concludes that the notice efforts 2 In particular, Plaintiffs cite Jn re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 327 F.R.D. 299, 321 (N.D. Cal. 2018), explaining that the court there found “that a 1.8% claims rate reflects a positive reaction by the class.” (ECF No. 36-2 at 7.) However, in that case, the court explained that “the response rate from the Class has been relatively low. Only about 1.8% of the Settlement Class Members have submitted claims. : Plaintiffs represent that this percentage compares favorably to the claims rates of approximately 0.2% and 0.23% in the /n re Home Depot and In re Target data-breach actions, respectively.” In re Anthem, 327 F.R.D. at 321. (citations omitted). The court went on to state that, “[uJnfortunately, despite [] extensive notice efforts, only 1.41 million Settlement Class Members out of the approximately 79.15 million Settlement Class Members, or about 1.8% of the total Class, have submitted claims. Nevertheless, the Court is convinced that the notice program provided the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances and complied with due process.” /d. at 329. The Court, like the court in /n re Anthem, finds the claims were extensive and provided the best notice practicable under the circumstances. See, e.g., Decohen vy. Abbasi, LLC, 299 F.R.D. 469, 479 (D. Md. Apr. 17, 2014) (finding that a direct mail notice to each class members’ last known address, and a second notice if the first was undeliverable, was the best approach practicable and satisfied notice requirements). This conclusion is bolstered by Angeion’s representation that it believes that notice reached 98% of the Class. (See ECF No. 36-4 at 3 (Declaration from an Angeion project manager that “Angeion has reason to believe the Notice Plan reached a total of 302,689, or 98%, of the 308,560 unique records provided to it in AMM’s Class List”).) The Court also finds that the content of the notice (ECF No. 36-3 at 9-15) adequately informed Class Members of the requisite items under Rule 23(c)(2), which requires that notice apprise class members of, inter alia, the nature of the action, the definition of the class, the claims. and issues, and the fact that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests an exclusion. E. Settlement Agreement The Settlement Agreement established a $2,500,000 non-reversionary Settlement Fund. (ECF No. 36-1 at 8.) The Fund will be used to “pay for benefits to the Settlement Class, notice and administration costs, Plaintiffs’ Service Awards, and Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses.” (/d. at 8-9.) The benefits to the Settlement Class are: “(1) reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket losses up to $7,500.00; and (2) pro rata cash awards to each valid claimant.” (/d. at 9.) The out- of-pocket costs can include, inter alia, costs incurred as a result of identity theft, and “it is estimated that the pro rata payments will be between $121.00 to $152.00 per Settlement Class Member who submitted a valid claim.” (/d. at 11, 24.) The Settlement Agreement “also provides rate to be somewhat underwhelming, but ultimately concludes that the notice here was the best notice practicable under the circumstances. edt OE eee □□□ Stee roe cage peer ravens = th DN. Tyee eae Tet DR omy fe ee Seat ae epee esis gee Sates oe aes yee eee a | LT Ss, hae Bog is Poe □□□ ng Goa eee ts SS Beit oe LE oe eee te nt er eae a per saa if — □□ ci Te Sone ae? op US oe seer tect hers fue eed alee ee SRS : ee See toe Sige eta oe Se [iw goes ae, one es pee Pas otk an HST) see See i said (Pers □□ □ pus od reniee wesc ee ee es ea: See ee baste Ag) eae □□□□ □□ - a, fave hr Aree ee Pe ES pias a Sete Reese fe Spe ee Se ee serra bs Sik be □□□ ie STE” ATE OR es Se ee eI a | poe “Sree Ses = Ky Pili ahida □□ □□□ □□ □ Bay Berea eae =e pi ee ee ee eee tae 2 Se 7 ee ee eee □□□□ = ee : a= Lata an □□ eee ee a Be oat pees ease Le wh □□□ □□ TSP ei □□ □□ ae □□ te "| See at age TH astey bes pees. es ty TRE es Ete rare as, tye oy □□□ □□□□ □□□□ PP ese ees her SN ee romepet yee! Be ST ore ata ge es ee “Ses Be ries SERS gee □□□ oe: tae ban oe. SS Mm Senin □□□ aA git goto eal em aay ees ee te □□ fle i oR ane A Ne La actrees Ses, at og, eee ee ae TE EE i oer □□ Pages Tey Pen □ ae ot ee fe ES oe ch he eee ee □□ ag Se ee Bis Seg te ah Fae □□□ □□ ales pee Beas CS ip Si erage eer Ee Beaty, Sag Fee i” Bee of ree Sel Bea © ; = i Seca auch E> a eve ance et gered Wie eee Soe eee ee tee Og Sat cress □□□□ □□□ en. vii kaos Dagde a toe semiepa dnd el aden nr salar as □□□□ □□□□ ee. eae ee ee ee gt ae SRR Say Ee □□□ □□□ eee FS SA ston ao? eee Brea eas “Sas pate a! □□ Pe ee ee Pe eae □□ □□□□□□ ee □□ cae moses nent Serene sete ates tes ect: ie LR SPRINT Se, ae “a aaa = SBE oat □□ ak TE EN Ph ey pee: 4 Bagclaas oes tyme eins □□ ae Lair ENS Sen ERR arate we) cage Ae ae EE SS te eR ste as uate 2 ee, Oe ee eee Peahigeh ee nares ae ee = saree: Drea gat a □□ □□□ □□ Siete rics SAG) PES □□□ Ee age argent 5 □□ gore: POE LN II □ □□□ □□□ ees Piet, PE es Bt, Sa Sofi SRR ote a ey rt Se, ee | □□ □ ST tere Honig St ght at toe eae Speer ata alae eee SS eg SS Pia i ae at poeaer ng Re □□□ es us tingsesy 2 By os AN nate Rapes Gs yee ae □□ een Tee. eee eke 7 ee iS eke an TSE □□ □□□ eee? SBEE Nees Bye HPAES Ee ne pl we + cote oo tye ge ty nye, □□□ □□ □ Re Sipe! FE eee eect eae ee See ee eet San Pres HSER? EST □□□□□□ □ a oF ee ae gs □ eg ee levee Sees Gee Meee □□□ Sr Nae EDS et eae none, gee Beene Wa.ae een, oe Meee 5 ae oe ee the □□ eee too □□□ eae ee cea apes: ye ie ope te eet. Spee ao hele ite ee ~ ae □□□□□ □□ eae □□□ oo pS Ses eg Chol eat Sa 50 “Sh eins Pease eo IN ee pte = □ : PES agieeses Lees paar Lifegt Meret trae ers hee fed Soro, aan ny teva □□□ tert a Siete SS a See econ sey te eA ed ao Rae ae apetes eng, Spee Seis □□ □□ eica™, bn Bile = Wer eee eee peer ates ae A es □□ ape teat. Geet Rear Garman □□ te Pea) oiel Wining. Coon ge a ee oh Tee earn ere Loker |) cog te Tees □□□ fon gy : We See eee jest eS See Hera tay es 7 2 a. □□ Sa ey oy we Be eet i eeeiges > 5 Fig. gra eer eae Se agi iter 71 eee phony i □□ □□ pias 1 18 AGS an ee ee alae Be A ttle Sei A rid otrqielket et □□□□ □ RS gi _ 3 shake he Be Se Se ee a ae Pal aye eS eas a Me ee ee □□ ees ieee ees ry ee esre ge Rees Ee Sat, Seas wali Be Seat Ptah □□□□ □□□ owe Aiea Naee epee wee, spe eerie ety See SI TS iN GP a paca. iar yd □ ARSE eS Se es □□ a Te rar ate eee PAGE fig. ot Ay ghee □□□ SF og Soap tees re Re US See ei Pe tags ee □□ See 5 = Es en Sake ner. Rag rae ea ae! re a eS eS OS ee, □□ wae se | eee Beet ae sR age a Be pee ae ks teres «| Me ola owe oe □□ hs. ete Hi sthe ee ey seers Soe ea. Dea te eee! ao 7-, 1 i □□ : Teed ih ae Es ahs a. A aI EER ae fer et ede et ee Se ashe ay 4 glee ste, V5 te os Cater eRe oo a fn □□ edeess □□ eee ce "ee nee Ra eB ota oe ak ae oe Hee, ae □□ Se oe Gere a ee Se Saco ee ear? See Sierocea. □ □□ □□ ee ges ign SOE ee eee = ees eS Aa Spoor, □□ eed □□ GRR Bee Shsis Pe eras rare aie age get gen Rome Me ee os a □□ ang cL LS Syst piel © betes Melis coca □□ AE i eo oa Pee i ae “Haare FL tes eae Barer Fe eas Hike ene & Re ros eee st Hes ee PN a Poe □□ ae ee ate Gree Gf a ar eS ge, repens 0 MASS Eger peece ee a ee eee ere eg Sore ee Renal Pa (mE Ri sz “4 WsitsS □ sh Seer es eget ee oe Me Se ee eae SRR Ae ae Be Pisa □□ fees Sal gall, See ees eae ees See ee he i ie: HE pees age □□□ □□ es ears we ote SLE Wie cs, ihe Geeta Been pee he ee Ea, og Meese = as Fe ert □□□□ 3 + teaege seh Le aise re ae en rads sae Bye seme Sa ee A a Sew ey ee cube □□ Pees Ran FSR ees Ae Leer eae Pehle Baa 2 ne She oS Boe RS 1, PES = hs □□□ □□ □ sees te er Ree eS, Roa fi and) See gee RSRIA TL, WEEP Thee Lege □□ □□ a apett Sant gen’ Gansta ree AOR le eres ee Bae ete 7 ea: □□ ie 5 teas 23s □□ Se Te ee TS vn : aN □□ ee “ie : . ENE hat 2 TR : San etait a Sta ak nt sos eer eT □ eS 5 = pei igen Swen AE ook Pasco Bee, Se ey ane 2. aun pee eg ee cheat 3 □ ee Sa Bee ee to es he ieee BAe i Sang steele ben ly aa ES a eee Se Rea ons Liege ia SS salt atee ie Miah fateh $j aoa ang ee □□ he whee © penn er eee S SOROS Ty = See Se a we pare etac tad Ag ES eesti SEES oS aes ee = ee ENG eee ara Pn Cea NS. URLs eet aS Aa meee a 7 = oe os Pa UES hay a tages oa gaa sift Fak Mees eee SEUMEAT Sebel vegyes □□ fgtn™ OE SEER ek Mie SE tags pace ee ART Be □□ en ee a3 es Poe, BRE ames) ARES Bera ge To HEE eee ae ars =i: > □□□ □□□ 2 eS i, Sewer Bie aoe ese {ps Seep ah WR a Pee, fie 3s = aoe □□ = es ~ Be eet “Gest sane act OR Berar ee Bee □□ □□ ag ape wet io. as □□ = aa ee are ee a SS ad, = Bee Sy □□□ □□□□ erica! VS ee =: Seg hes ee Meats? 3 Sct el Gig aR ere aS PY c -\4 □ = 4 □□ a ge Wi Pe ee ae 8 ae BELO Bi Nay sae > es aa) oe ae Pees □□□ □□□ See LAL aes Se Se ME Be Sen catin “eaph Re Ry eee 2 ibame OS : □□□□ SE □□ ree □□□ “yeh oe teees Sod Site tae Sea ae 9: MEER □□ EE ES □□□ GY me oe aia Sadi es Sere = BPR ea, Oe % poe Saks Sp ty PSL ars glee tee aes eS “ ae a □□ □□ □□□□□□□ peso acs t vo gt ginee Ag ciate ide tei Sateen eS “ahs TES dae □□ Os, Roady ca ee PR Sede. Bilge) Set ret oan □□□ en, RULE ye all Somes ats = | gees gee ee i □□□ hed ay KS PB aging re Dh Te era. Ere oe aha i erie on 2 □□□ ter Sets aS □ □ RRS ee (i toket □□□ te ee tea □□ eS ai le om egy nee he 7 3 oe pe □□□ z= wae Ge a wre □□□ oe =F Sis UE SAS, AGS OC Rage gigs. 2 □□ □ sj i i Rareas 2a ie SS sae Panui etige 2 SaeS iter gaits SOY. ee. Uy, □□□ a □□□ □□ Bee eae Bh pte ae See est pate ak ea he tenets a ES he oR Tene □□ □□ ees bh bere Hee ed eens, ee Ra sites! ak Se oy ha tao ake ie Se 2 □□ □□ gee) tee □□□ DME tiseale Mike fe SUR, Uae ap weal ee oe tog eee □□□ 5 oe □ eae ae Ds NRE Ae ee ingest Piper Aer tee trent Teer eye fea oe aetian | □□□□□ foc, RS ei ere RES Eo aS nb eee ee pits hate. Seed Mesa Re Eh OAT fete □□□□ □□ Aiea! SE SE Bee ee, Rap ale. eBay eee SAT SP □□□ So ee □□ Sigs ate ee Bedi ce, Pe □□□ tena“ ae ae eee ah, Fee eae so ~ oy thee tho =. oe Sth ae eee □□□ gee at Bye te beg a tees eS en : pte □ □ □□□ PCNA! ape ee ee ees Fars ee oak Shey By reeked ; : aegis PB reypeser Eager Freee alsa Patter aye gon tt ee a Mises □□ ; vey eS SS res a ea ae a □□ Bg ghee, gS □□□ * ieee igaey, □□ eet Te ie PO eel aS Ee SE asi hae GE Eg ates eee Bhs 1S oe aa) □□ - a □ TN Gare se Rey Mee ee ees at Bree Pe tes en coats Pas feun oy tee =f ign? Re ad □□□□□ □□□ □□ Gea) eS Pgs eee ee emer me eo ae Se amet □□□ □□ eg ra °c tthe Bet cota ee TP ame cetade Spee GP RUN □□□ Se SMT “es Mapegipnege □□□□□ Pies S0gisty dee elspa tapes ate □□ □□ gt Rae Spar yea! tess RP □□□ □□ □□□ □□□ Ege sre shige dy iene ofepi ges Rogiidaite a 2 pe dy Se nae) □□ pe pip ol □□□□ □□ var ee “eee See CE er oe Tae a fees ees PERE Ss) ae: ee S32 734 fenorat os 5 □□□□ □□ oe a ee co Rey tee eevee Pee □□□ gs a ea Fy ee pees □□ pees rl 08 at See ergs ae Se eee wheats as Tap eugle etace prer □□□ □□ □□□ ee gs SER See Se □ Stee gee ieee fe SR wis eee, □□ ce Fae ee □□ □□ □□ te ees □□□ Asia 2 Pico Bs le ee Fao nae Met Sh yes es states “eed ee Behl □□ □□□□ □□□□□ □□□ eee nay oe Ee □□ □□□ = ert ae GES, Be aa Sones: ae aes aie. ig he OS Te Se pats te a SE RES OR ee 3 é HELE □□ □□□ □□□ eee □□ Py ther ee? Bet ees Fae ness eee bata oe oe ae, Ce eee ee on feta □□ eee Os He EAE OR MoS 2G EN SS i tig? enh te: igre □□□ Toe. oe ee eee REC SESS SBS TAL BF ee □□ ee GA foes a ete! GEES Arg Oe Gee OT A sn Weeds of beg tes BR TPs? ek □ □□□ ES ee Syke Aa ee Fe Teele tae da) Ge eee ot Bor BONES ee Foret nega rs = □ □ □□ □□□ BS EPA pT et ease SON ee PP ee a ye eR ee Bt Se gst ae + aot a □□ □□□ □ Rs GR ae ON ee eA ag JipeBhesie e+ ches are his OG eh □ ces poe RUS Eee en oe RR SS Se SSE nh Se PRES hie) See see te etihe □□□□ □□□ □ geaes fe Soe, oe See ee | eer ee ane □□□ hoe et es wees □□□ BS etch bs + = 4 Phage Me ek ee RR pn ta eae oe □□□ al eR ba > ee □□ 5 ti, Foy 3 So citar tees Tae ess EP ed a e308 Seon □□ Seen a gt □□□ I ie pet Se ae Be eID Gee TED feige gee aL tee □□□ : : _ j eek □□ □□ PSE BL iE se auc fuser Peer ee were 2? es ns ee Seah ay □□□ iL See > □□□ □□ ae a Eee stein ogee Bee eT Salts ASU, pet Soa See Regie Searle eae Spee ett sae eke, Seiatinlgg □□ hs Se SETS, SSA By □□□ a ee ate) □□□ Eee iced □□ age EN Re RS Pa ka to Seles RR att Se ES ge See Gee ak | “ott Pees. mee : Sn : ine TE ae eee hs nt SA ee, a Se ae een eee ~ hes Ga Sea tl. Cepia Mer PH TAN a ie: Pel es 28 Te □□ ee, Su eerie a Pease eS □□ gee eS ete Ee □□ □ □□ fe ST oly SNe a eet abt Sy, teertS as oy me ae ee See FS ee eG epee □ De 3 ie foe. Su a ea ee She eee at iain th □ pete} eae Keceet he Sy agate te □□ sae Re RS Elis i aareieareme test alam stata cf siete □□ «cena Bede, Bore hE a eS a □□ eege ee ae Ba ae poe! | ae ge ea a +g, See git “Sy ie Bee okt SES Aa: phase ees its □□□ nahs a ae poet! a nt, + eee □ | oF We oa ie SORE ASS 3 aa pa ey Gotta deh so Seed ee oe gr aay tbl Fea □□ {soe cite area? lea eee eee neat ee tee EE es ae Se □□ □□ □ he Sms ; Deg ere ee □□ St PR a ar SO ee eee aa ht □□□□□ □□□ □ SEES. PSR oe eee a LS Sseheys ae eee es Rig ge eet eh Ry □□ oa oF Ene ails eies se □□ Seay oe kare Ret ys: SBaTe. = akeet Sete □ ee a ai = eet aan Donat Gans ge ee Boy ee = eae. et Senate eee a eee ees a ieee Te ea = Feat sacs □□ ye ge 2 ie □□ oe eee se ty ee Wy ee hee □□□ Bees ign = chee ga) Bt coe □□□□□ □□□□ ye ee : po aes a2 Ser eri, aE al ere mee Fore Hee . eheteess Ld Stor Sis: □□□□□□□□□ a es : a 2 eat eee Somes ee eucg See Fel [anes 1s eS □□□ ax 2 Sea ee era ie Oy ae ee ee at eave Bee cea eee ly Reaee □□□□ □□ □□□ “Fe. | □□□□□ □□□ □□ □□□□ Non-Monetary Relief to the Settlement Class in the form of enhancements to AMM’s data systems, including those systems impacted by the Cyberattack. These enhancements are significant and have cost AMM more than $500,000.00[.]” Ud.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that “‘[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class . . . may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval,” and Rule 23(e)(2) requires that the Court find that a proposed settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” “The primary concern addressed by Rule 23(e) is the protection of class members whose rights may not have been given adequate consideration during the settlement negotiations.” In re Jiffy Lube Sec. Litig., 927 F.2d 155, 158 (4th Cir. 1991). The Fourth Circuit “has developed multifactor standards for assessing whether a class-action settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate’ under Rule 23(e)(2).” Jn re Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Prods. Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 952 F.3d 471, 484 (4th Cir. 2020). The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 33 at 7-12; ECF No. 34 § 2), and now finds that it should be finally approved, given that it meets the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. In determining a settlement’s fairness, the Court considers: “(1) the posture of the case at the time settlement was proposed; (2) the extent of discovery that had been conducted; (3) the circumstances surrounding the negotiations; and (4) the experience of counsel in the area of [the] class action litigation.” Lumber Liquidators, 952 F.3d at 484 (citing Jiffy Lube, 927 F.2d at 159). “The fairness analysis is intended primarily to ensure that a ‘settlement [is] reached as a result of good-faith bargaining at arm’s length, without collusion.” Berry v. Schulman, 807 F.3d 600, 614 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Jiffy Lube, 927 F.2d at 159). The focus of the fairness prong is “the procedural propriety” of the agreement. Edelen v. Am. Residential Servs., LLC, Civ. No. DKC- 11-2744, 2013 WL 3816986, at *8 (D. Md. July 22, 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). While the first element—the posture of the case—does not necessarily weigh in favor of the final approval of the settlement, the remaining factors do. This case was barely litigated before it went to mediation, and was then quickly resolved in that forum. However, the parties engaged in extensive investigation and informal discovery. (See, e.g., ECF No. 36-2 at 4 (Declaration explaining that Plaintiffs obtained informal discovery from AMM on various topics).) Counsel are experienced in the area of class action litigation. (See ECF No. 36-4 at 1-2.) And nothing in the circumstances surrounding the Settlement Agreement was the product of anything other than hard-fought, arm’s-length negotiations. (See ECF No. 36-2 at 4-5 (describing the mediation process, including that mediation was before the Honorable Diane M. Welsh).) The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair. In assessing the adequacy of a proposed settlement, the Court must consider: “(1) the relative strength of the plaintiffs’ case on the merits; (2) the existence of any difficulties of proof or strong defenses the plaintiffs are likely to encounter if the case goes to trial; (3) the anticipated duration and expense of additional litigation; (4) the solvency of the defendant[] and the likelihood of recovery on a litigated judgment; and (5) the degree of opposition to the settlement.” Lumber Liquidators, 952 F.3d at 484 (citing Jiffy Lube, 927 F.2d at 159). “The most important factors in this analysis are the relative strength of the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits and the existence of any difficulties of proof or strong defenses.” Sharp Farms v. Speaks, 917 F.3d 276, 299 (4th Cir. 2019). The focus of the adequacy prong is “the agreement’s substantive propriety.” Edelen, 2013 WL 3816986, at *8 (citations and quotation marks omitted). The Fourth Circuit has not enumerated factors for assessing reasonableness. 1988 Tr. for Allen Children Dated 8/8/88 v. Banner Life Ins. Co., 28 F.4th 513, 527 (4th Cir. 2022). However, it has “suggested that assessing whether a class settlement is ‘reasonable’ involves examining the amount of the settlement.” □□□ (citing Sharp Farms, 917 F.3d at 303-04). “To the extent that reasonableness does any work not already performed by one of the other Rule 23(e)(2) requirements, . . . it at least ensures that the amount on offer is commensurate with the scale of the litigation and the plaintiffs’ chances of success at trial.” Jd. The Court analyzed each of these factors in detail in. its Memorandum preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement. (See ECF No. 33 at 9-11.) Nothing causes the Court to revisit that analysis, and the Court incorporates it by reference. Further, the parties have now provided more information that strengthens the Court’s conclusion that the Settlement Agreement continues to be adequate and reasonable. First, Plaintiffs provide more detailed information about the pecuniary benefit for each Settlement Class member who submitted a claim, and this information reflects that those Class Members will receive a substantial pro rata payment between $121.00 and $152.00. (ECF No. 36-1 at 24.) This benefit is separate from the reimbursement of up to $7,500 for out-of-pocket losses, and from the remedial security measures estimated to be worth $500,000. (/d.) Second, the parties have now presented evidence regarding the degree of opposition to the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs explain that “as of November 8, 2024, out of the 308,560 Settlement Class Members who received notice, Angeion received only eight timely exclusion requests and no objection to the Settlement.” (ECF No. 36-1 at 25.) “It is established that the absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement action are favorable to the class members.” West v. Cont’] Auto., Inc., Civ. No. 16-00502-FDW-DSC, 2018 WL 1146642, at *6 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 5, 2018) (citation omitted); see also Boyd v. Coventry Health Care Inc., 299 F.R.D. 451, 461 (D. Md. 2014) (“The fact that no class member objected supports final approval of the Settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable.”). Based upon the foregoing, the Court will finally certify the Settlement Class; finally 10 appoint Brent, Buechler, Ade-Fosudo, Walker, Dike, and Woerner as Class Representatives; finally appoint David Lietz and Courtney Weiner as Class Counsel; find that the notice met the requirements of Rule 23; and finally approve the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. III. Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs and for a Service Award Plaintiffs also seek an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs and service awards for the named Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiffs seek $750,000 in attorneys’ fees; $25,273.37 in litigation costs; and $15,000 total for the named Plaintiffs,? to be divided equally among them. The Motion will be granted in part, and the Court will award $625,000 in attorneys’ fees, $25,273.37 in litigation costs; and $15,000 in service awards. A. Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs In a class action, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs as authorized by law or by agreement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). The Fourth Circuit has explained that “(t]here are two main methods for calculating the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees—the lodestar method and the percentage-of-recovery method’”—and that a “district court may choose the method it deems appropriate based on its judgment and the facts of the case.” McAdams, 26 F.4th at 162. “Courts in this circuit generally use a percentage of recovery method and supplement it with the lodestar method as a cross-check.” Donaldson v. Primary Residential Mortg., Inc., Civ. No. ELH-19-1175, 2021 WL 2187013, at *8 (D. Md. May 28, 2021). Accordingly, the Court will determine whether the requested amount is reasonable pursuant to the percentage-of-recovery method and confirm the reasonableness with a lodestar cross-check. District courts in this circuit have analyzed the following seven factors in determining 3 At the Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel advised the Court that its request for $12,500 was the product of a math error, and that they actually seek $15,000. The Court finds that the parties’ anticipated service awards of $2,500 for each Named Plaintiff is appropriate. (See infra Section III.C.) 11 whether a requested percentage is reasonable: “(1) the results obtained for the class; (2) the quality, skill, and efficiency of the attorneys involved; (3) the risk of nonpayment; (4) objections by members of the class to the settlement terms and/or fees requested by counsel; (5) awards in similar cases; (6) the complexity and duration of the case; and (7) public policy.” Singleton v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 976 FE. Supp. 2d 665, 682 (D. Md. 2013). Courts need not apply the factors in a “formulaic way” and may weigh the factors as appropriate for a particular case. Jd. Class Counsel seeks $750,000, which amounts to 30% of the Settlement Fund.* Results obtained. The Court finds that the results obtained for the Setilerhent Class are good, given the Settlement Fund secured by Class Counsel and the remedial measures. Class Counsel point to the settlement amounts obtained in other data breach litigation, which confirms that the monetary amount provided in the Settlement Agreement provides a greater recovery per Class Member than other similar settlements. (See ECF No. 35-1 at 7.) In addition, the Court finds that the non-monetary remedial measures also represent a substantial benefit to the Settlement Class. See In re AOL Time Warner S’holder Derivative Litig., 2010 WL 363113, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2010) (suggesting that fee awards should be structured in a way that incentivizes “future counsel to devise remedies as an alternative to money, strengthening corporate America in the long run through innovation and prophylaxis”). Further, the Court has received no objections regarding the Settlement Agreement, which also indicates that the results achieved by Class Counsel are satisfactory to the Class. Quality, skill, and efficiency of the attorneys. The Court had little opportunity to observe the quality and skill of Class Counsel, given that this case was stayed almost immediately upon filing, and essentially no litigation occurred in this Court. However, Class Counsel have ‘ It represents 25% of the total settlement consideration if the Court takes into account the non-pecuniary benefit to the class (i.e., the $500,000 remedial measures and the $2,500,000 fund). The Court finds that, in this case, the appropriate measure is the $2,500,000 fund, rather than the total $3,000,000 consideration. 12 many years of experience in consumer, data breach, and class action law, (ECF No. 36-2 at □□□□□ and the Court does not doubt that Class Counsel’s quality and skill provided them with the necessary tools to negotiate a favorable settlement. Risk of nonpayment. “In determining the reasonableness of an attorneys’ fee award, courts consider the relative risk involved in litigating the specific matter compared to the general risks incurred by attorneys taking on class actions on a contingency basis.” Jones v. Dominion Res. Servs., Inc., 601 F. Supp. 2d 756, 762 (S.D.W. Va. 2009). The Court does not find that Class Counsel undertook any unique risk here. In short, while “attorneys undertaking class actions bear substantial risks that the litigation will not result in payment|[,]... [t]here is no evidence... that Class Counsel undertook greater risk in this case than in any other typical class action.” Jones, 601 F. Supp. 2d at 762-63. Indeed, “the usual risks of nonpayment associated with class actions were largely dissipated once the parties entered settlement negotiations.” Jd. (ultimately reducing the award from 25% to 20%); see also Strang v. JHM Mortg. Sec. Ltd. P’ship, 890 F. Supp. 499, 503 (E.D. Va. 1995) (explaining that although “Counsel should be rewarded for the risks they incurred in accepting Plaintiffs’ case, the Court finds that these risks were minimalized by early settlement,” and reducing the fee award from 30% to 25% of the settlement fund). As the Court has previously explained, this case was initially filed in state court in July 2023, and was ultimately removed to this Court on November 30, 2023. The case was stayed on December 6, 2023, mere days after it was removed. The parties then had a one-day mediation on December 18, 2023, at which they reached a settlement in principle. The parties continued negotiations, and finalized and signed the Settlement Agreement on April 18, 2024. Thus, the Court finds that Class Counsel’s risks were substantially mitigated by early settlement. Objections. No Class Members have objected, and only eight have opted out. Awards in similar cases. A 30% recovery is typical in similar cases. See, e.g., Huttonv. □ Nat'l Bd. of Exam’rs in Optometry, Inc., Civ. No. JKB-16-3025, 2019 WL 3183651, at *7 (D. Md. July 15,2019); All. Ophthalmology, PLLC v. ECL Grp., LLC, Civ. No. 22-296, 2024 WL 3203226, at *14 (M.D.N.C. June 27, 2024); see also Boyd v. Coventry Health Care Inc., 299 F.R.D. 451, 464 (D. Md. 2014) (“Attorneys’ fees awarded under the ‘percentage of recovery’ method are generally between twenty-five (25) percent and thirty (30) percent of the fund.”). Complexity and duration of the case. “In evaluating the complexity and duration of the litigation, courts consider not only the time between filing the complaint and reaching settlement, but also the amount of motions practice prior to settlement, and the amount and nature of discovery.” Boyd, 299 F.R.D. at 465 (citation omitted). As the Court has previously explained, this case has been short-lived. Further, the litigation has not been complex.” Plaintiffs explain that “[t]hough this case settled at a relatively early stage, it did so only after voluntary dismissals, refiling in state court, the introduction of an additional defendant, and removal, all in discussions with Defendant AMM.” (ECF No. 35-1 at 10.) The Court does not find that any of these events weigh in favor of finding that this case is of any exceptional complexity, as each of these events are relatively routine in any litigation. Plaintiffs also explain that “[t]he parties have engaged in extensive negotiations, culminating in an in-person mediation session with the Hon. Diane Welsh (Ret.) that lasted into the evening hours.” (ECF No. 35-1 at 5 The Court also finds that counsel’s characterization of these cases’ earlier procedural history as “long” (ECF No. 35- 2 4 5) is somewhat exaggerated. The data breach occurred in May 2023, various plaintiffs began filing suits in July 2023, they moved to consolidate these actions in September 2023 and filed their consolidated class action complaint in state court in October 2023, the case was removed to this court in November 2023, and they reach a settlement in principle by mid-December 2023. (/d. J] 5-20.) Thus, only about five months passed from the filing of the first state court action to the mediation at which this matter was settled in principle. 14 we ee age ah gee ae ee a ee! = To eran ee es a seal chr sewage eee ee Le op et HS = Be Boesg □ □□□ = 1 Rye! eee er = EE ees aa Sd ayes □□ Mp ee = - er □□□ - eae oe 2 Ete aieaiiey sone = ae SS eS Pohaee Be a Serpe eR oes ee oS □ egre Uy eine? □□□ eens gate ere es Seda Sift | Sage See ne □□□ * Spates Be want Page On □□ ieee Nae oot WE sn pe aig □□ □□ □□□ aes ete □□ □□□□□ Sh Uae ey aaah pay oe Sas 2 pene Leb ees eaten, Se eee os wet. gfe Lae caer ty yee eee □□ Se Se ee ee Sap gene PC Seo rae ag Geren seem ein Sade ees ge. □□□ wife tag. 2 ieniees (hele ies eteenigs Le = ae ei act =p Sago peat agli, ies fn Ser ated ee □ Mee □□□ □□□ Be □□ Ree aS Bo SS aie ee ees Sait, EAS ee ie ae res 2a ae ce. □□ es pee be Sk □□ “Te = ace ones hey ee ee ea aed = eae tare 4 a Gace di, Se ane ete eae, he Ee □□□ □□□ el ae, af CE eh ee ee ae coh ey ee pigace “Aiba GRASS pgs eg □□ Gt Sa iy □□ □□ na dine Hiei gett ime artige tl aot ne ge ee tt a ne ue 5 PRE hae ore ee aoe eS Ripe wee ae Rasp we Boa ee □□□ tae □□ eS Oe OPS pear UE, eRe ater SE tee a genie eee eran ae te See SE de Om at □□□□ □□□ cede oe gees nee PE □□ □□ ee re PEE □□ tens gt aie □□□ ag RS Glee en tee ee a ee ee Fs os SEG Gh AE Mirage A □ beasts es Eker 1 eS tats ete ate yee □□ ae ERO OMIRE oa ee nS □□□ RET ES eR aes. SE eet A OG IE OR OR ea fee er a □□ iene. Te taht matey sa Peter fen, □□ gaa eater aes aes awie ey nee gs oN SA ata □□ □□□□ □□ □□□ a deciles Seo ee Pee ee oe en eee Sg See lier □□□□ □□ ty sano Agee er een i eee oe.” Fee Breese isi See ie Sais aS □□□ eee □□ agent eae Beier Bieta □□ eae tenis □□□ Bie egy ge Mt ag Sea Sed 37 nipde iy Tees A AT □□□□□ ARS As Cee Sire ee oa ued er) SA □□ ent SERGE Sy A eet we ok og SELL Se ae TENE Cee PERRET CRG Sern emg he igh Per □□□ □□□ □□ □□□□ et SS RS py eet mie eae ee OR ee oe ON Se a eee, Saree eae, OPW ated Pe Re □□ as = | Eee SRR eg □□ eh a dee aay ae ee ees Ve Pte Ts ; ee SS oe Pe Le ey □ Seeytarecs 7) at aptae Bete eee geet ee □□ □□ get ee eee See opie | □□ 7 ae ectlepes □□ % wae Tee) = ce ieee aieg Seeman aoe See ES ary ee eer gE Tt See ee RaeO I 6 □□ □□□□ □□ □□ □□□ ie go se oe io ge Fes ees ey Sp aie ROP BG ht aks Weed lg EY □□□□□ □□ Se ee = a gees ek ae Ber Vea ee Sede ge PR Bae at UE ie de aay □□ □□□□ □□□ □ eS BROS SPN REE BE ES Sa ae (ee ea ieee, ee esteem Me gen a a tes oe eepee aS EM ae □□□□□□□□ □□□□□ eee ere, Ge Nira sere alee heer ee Se eT ae MEE eee ot 7 vel Bealee □□□ □□ □□ apes □□ a ere a fae Stee OEE ae at ee Se Sh Se ee 3 ae 5. Site 1 eterno ty ee asm □□□ □□ □□□□□ □□□ □□□ Peay ee aoe cece te. sects Eee ss Jagtim aie ee io: ee oF da ‘eres ay Sg ee olay eetc □□ plete phy eg | ales eases oo Fee AAS Agi ea □□ rae ap pe ae Sol see BaP CER gee OES | 8s PRS Ble epoen □□ URES Lge RE repeat □□ □□□□ Ste Sp TSS Se SO i a Ee eee ayer Me ed sree ee ee : em ae rit tr Ee ae Be Bay oe eg eee eS OResdle ae pi es Tastee eS a ; _ whe □□ □□□ □□□□ REE □□□ esate eee Sa ear Sk Ne eS Ae ad Bee BG, □□ □□□□ □□ ete ot a : Aspe alee "ya itis oo ie Se pe a = i AO wl Se eg □□ WE a eS Fos ees □□□□ □□□ eee, =i degoets nahi Eis agin SPE ea tees wae eis eee ote ee cook au RES Souk eet Eel: Sa eee - oy SSS eegts scale ee pated Se aS (ay pu ied aa - Sige Se Posts ashe □ SIR tS Het GOES eae hark ER, Sale Sieg Bees eee a orig sat et □□ eee Soop aol □□ Bee eee ete nee nee 5” ye on! Saale Sue □□□ gi tee “ah Se □□□ BO □□ □□ hae See ee gre Ieee ies) sees ee oe - Ss he eat SBS 7s > □□ te bo Le St Ree May ree ae Seems “Balt Bice Wage | ae ae = - x □□□ □□ aig a ple Seta Ce Saige oti Png Mek TE en ia! Te □□□□ Sey Blows Agi ES me Sate mpaa Pompe bales ea mae rae FE soph syed cic, □□ shh Tn TE aot Ege je = eee Sra ate oe Sy cee ep eg He □□□ sentir y nth toepngentth aes □□□ So Ste 2 Se Sees teres mg re ST Gero oer) tote □□□ □□ Tee Sy eRe OSH i eee SEER Speen teen kc Slee hana ee Re STC be □□□ greg □□ □□ | □□□ SS Ma et ll SS os . ae eee Si ee ear a farts Fe Pete = 7 2 Soe □□ □□ Mege Re! ay eh ates ee oe eee cage ae ees Booey Se □ . ‘ SP ESS Ga ee ee eS, eee aN Se Teng Oar, Sige ee oF □□□ Re alee ae Eg Ace eh ee eaten ee tt gt ee I ee Peete ae Te ae □□□ ty □ □□ | EBT Sisat pits diay pie eee iia pe Rese SEM ee earn ay ee DS id pe eae | ea LN eS Hy fe EU □□□ ES EERE ESS SR DaRE ia Ea Pes 8 | nbs □□□□ She RRS SRO Ne ee ee eee ee Bie hee! ie □ bere So) we □□□ □□□ ah ag Be nye dat Qo ae fal aa ore Pea Seid Be Nhe ia fo inne □□□ □□□ pte khgee te eagisy ct gt Se tee Eo. gas edt AERA) □□□ ORE aa PBs Fa Cee eR ee ie Seg SRR se ee Ae St eer eee oS Tne ogee a eg eee ee BF Sh eae Peele) ee an □□ □ ee ee ee □□□ a ere ee eee Se ee yet □□□□□□ □ ete TS a SE ee ree | edie ke eRe a eae ee eres ag 2 Sa eT soe pais 3 PASS OR gate grin Aa Sees cine oe ta ae ees ye et oS Ties, □□ the a3 coh RARER ei On Re SERS Se aaah peal aint ona is da SE, = □□ A Lu.) Biggin ayers Beene ss asec ceeN ees Os Waiver Pe. gia" Phas Bice tage” See □□□ RN, |e = pias VERE = tet get EPIL SSSR 22ers plas 8G SPER □□□ □ PEN ich, Lae se es ernie een TES BE RE ES 208 EE □ ete a a TNS eee get toe sees <3 ete ue age ee ae et Se 2S SEE) aes □□ am “ Sia. 20) ee eg Se So elt □□ SET YT says gS 5 a Be □□ □□ □□ earn) get Woe) ee ae Sesto SA a a rete ee _ TE Aatee, Sa 2 See = I 1 tegatgtome: □□ ees aed weet ee iain saute OO LE eee ot pe) hes hse etter gil we BESS eee a teiie □ AE te nd Sse RT Oo BT Estate □□□□ . SER ae tea aE es ea ee ae eet Pe Re tat rr 8 peiveaei Fe te FS Lea! □□□□ Mae apnea eat Spa OSTRS □□ Se ue ae Yat aS ey Berea Beal = : □□ □ Ett ee ges leat eee ene te SENT eeae es □ a, ota □□ bye =r eae beer gin pci a eet ae Weseat tert dict eile Sm Bs EE □ see □□ □□ coat sr CRE □□ ee oe cet) ne eee ene hr eee at ea aller 2s pres Geter yp eee et TS □□ □□ ey ee Wie ee gs Pe Pie to aa a eve | wt ys epee s pple □□□□ □□□□ □□□□ □ os ORR BREDA Sot Ri oa atte | ae oe espe padres es oe se egy □□□ BEE 7h Seat Utica om oP □□□ aaa egies edict A oc? -},* □ □□□□□□□□□□□ Tw □□ its Ee □□□ tate Beg oigiem eeeoeietn wage ae ee Sted Fela Se eee Tagiegean Pata a silt □□□□□□ □□□ □□ a SO Sn os ates, ee as figs ee Re Me HE ae Se ae poets diag 8 □□□ ee Pc ea tot Benoa ath teeters tye Seen py: Masi Siptigiee + pee wees □□ yw pieet pe ope See ae ee i ee 2s «$22 eens 13 □□□ sare te ess: * Pie oe Regt hte tes sa □□□□ □□□□ eect oi Soca Oa eae Be a if Seah Noe) Be ee hee ce hehe ee tears kA □ ES 5) A eee ee fee cea pd Ie □□ Ee eae □□□ Se pect eel | eee Gace Risk A Ey ne ae a eae eee Scan Ek gee = □□ 3 J me a eae ea □□ □□□ ek ta ase cee ae dT Sane Tose = : □□□ □□ ee pS ciel ON age ee eee gee a aire 5 eel Covae et ae ee Sashes Se eee eure eae ceca | eke. Sy yg it esetei depen eB = lates ae aye Ty nei bee bot oat sete Reese SSE aE, eee ae Rear eer She MN □□ □□ ced WP eee rey eye eee □□□ ae ar eens we □□ □□□ ee se Se he etme ge OO) ae Veen Ee ae □□ eo aa an sige eee □□ acta ts an, i age aaa Ata oS □□ □□ □ Hime □□□ = s Aimee ia: HT year □□□□□ □□□ A enapeget 9. Foo 3 Peele oe PAB Sie Ne Rs Bae □□ sCEESk ghee Seal? 2: sven Ea □□□ □ Paton | a ee PUI EY cae ele Bae ene ee eee ag net ee gee ee | ge os SS aie Bsc | eRe Re ree eeeearine are ae SRE oat aes carer Fen Toe eR □□ □ © cepts wads Rp aes Sue semen Gy oe ce Te Aes Bin Tac Seeds =, per abe. 5 5 □□□ □ as, ed eke cae aie | eet ue eae OP pps □□ oe Tee Bey Saget. □ eg □□ we eremeneS ass Se gi ee ie age □□□ ag te Segres, Se ENG wie SEE MESES ON Geet Ae ee gee □□ Cage eee situs ee Se eee te. Om aw Bega □□□ □□□ SESE: Sree TE ey hac) aes ee aes eee, PEERS Pa □□□ TF 2 ee Spec TER ae □□ □□ «ate i opis nad ee Ee □□ eA pe Homa eee Te i ereknens LP = as, Se □ mis eras □□ □□□ Ser = Sos i SP eee alin 2 ee | : 2 □□□ □□ □□□ See | a3 Tp tae BS, oA ge. eee ate eee Seige ea ADL □□ Fea eT ce aitat □ □□□□□ wal es ie: oe, goles teers 5 liipen neebee bere, oa aye ee □ eh spe oes □□□□ : Sic 5 TP ap i poe eae ata cies □□□ trae egy Fer gest oy (PRE erie □□ 5 UP age REE AS pen ee poe □□ oe SES Ge □□ □□□ 8 > eS ge es ante Oe eS = ean Spe de eee ge ere BES □□ □□□ OEP ee en OR ey, aes Boe ue Hees ce eg GR Re eae CEP at Fe eke □□□□ □□ □□□ Se 7 ash Eovte Pore ES □□ wate aR eat seein Nae, cae Sa SS ee □□□□ □□ Sees Se ge iN a ea ae nape ges eee ee ta 2 we ole bles Sp ed on Sieg □□ oe cage ne □□□ Edges eee fecaj fr earns Se bi □□ Paes: ABR iat hs HBG = PAR it OA ee □□□□ □□ Se oS PRES a8 ELD EL SSO BS Se □□□ SH) ee ae ee te Re Egan □□□□ □ □□ 2 □□ ir puso a NG. Peete ise PAE, Se Etgeree te ae est peat eet Ee ES □□□□□□□ OR. ats ERE pe ng eget ake, Oy mn oe ee Beit See EE se □□□□ □□□□□ □□ eens 4 ks ele oe nae 2 eal, td See yp ates pais ke Heenen cg) ieee Paty hg Me setiyette □□□ □□ □□ Re 2 AN ee oe ce ti ree so Gt ae Se Tas ED □□□ oe Seg SU eon □□□ □□ Sree LOT i a (eee a Poe Oe ee ies ees eS dois = esa tes Ee HE 8 SE = TR □□ □□□□ ae es oes □□ ppeapeses wee fo St ae Se ce are SS es ue “i me ae □□□ □ ven a oe ee ae nea epee eameerrees Wee A bee Se a Reh Eee tps dae eee ag | Foot aby □□□□□ □□ Fig tee Sebs, Se ogee Ge Baireseark OL, na Sein spear oe ae Sr § i tee nese Pin age gg A eee a lees □□□ = Sat a eer ee I ay - eae □□□□□ □ pe Stare eae Saag 6 RMS aos aR A anes Ge ies eaeo SS ms = ae □□ + wie 2 Miche Oat bon ok ame ae gee ge oe a Paden Spit es tush a. ah hg ae. Sa 35 es: OO DOES Be Atop TSE orga ic ee eee, oy ON A tO ete ee “if Maths Pal □□ □ “coe 2S Pipe gee eta Ree Seen Rama cat ge Tae Se) | ee "lee igs eS. □□ Sf penal te Se Gael Rte Se a 3 ee eee esi os aes Co ee eee es et ‘ga SESe 2 greene □□□ □□ oe ae = Rd ee = oe ae Soe es. ais ae FEE Tigra pine gee ary a npeeaeisog = a □□ □□□□ 7 aN ha ay □□ _ Se arta, See ei en eae oA Giese CONSE ree ee pat 4 Fil LS chee SEM iow Be SG ee ee a eee □□ Hgsees Ss ae EEE □□ ie: oe oo ee EES geen et ba Ee cate gt eae aa Suites! 2 □□□ □□ BE AG on ee NG pre SR □ eee erie POS WE BASIS □□□ GE) A □□ eet oie es Mee Sabeg | Wien a ie ; ene eae □□□ Bh San accent aah oases yer gear a erate ens oe ged UA Fog ane. te ace NES □□ oy eae Sele ditt Ge □□□ ee eae Gre RENE oa eae EAS a se Se □□□□ i ate ar aay Wille eae ee atc age SE □□ ope Set Rote ods Lege 0, SS □□ = wee Ae BR gt er eae ge Sate pene glee. | Reus ae we cae eae soe te Semi | sabres Petey □□ 4 copay Teeow Sebi ey, eta ee Eh SECTS eacetaeae DOr iret Shia: edb “até sg ae aes □□□ □ iSigee* egeb. TF eee eat, DU thee ee eed are: ee ae Ee ee eae 2h i Sree grape ayes je □□ bd. Ga hain oe Ree Wo sh ae BS Seta oe BS ae ok □□ fined obs □□ □□ □□□□□ ESR Ale, res Aah A canes sO ied Sy VEC gad BRE Lb BEER Io Fe Meee Hs: fo yee a nef SR ear denn Sa Naw era eines cok Sore eee Be Pen Moor eh oe apie Been “a _ □□ 3 □ Sderaesine ee Ze ah ae Aged Beet Bey peas gt Heike 23 soot Pee Rae, Se Satie ae □□□ ole: Se eae, eet > eaten oles fhe □□ □□ □□ □ Wee. See nn Hie Mee ee ay oe Ee, Sa SS Sie Batts ai □□□ □□ □□ □ = rs □□□ igre aR Oe □□ oe eee eRe iS Bd □□ pee Es = Re A ee □□ □□□□ pepe ey Fo ase. es, reese Se See te. □□□ Fe eis PE tae Dein See □□ □□ □□□ □□ Fig oe “pete ey See epee Cad Tee, 2 Et = oye eels S Ee aati, (ee ere ee □□□ +23 aie eS AE oe AG Daten ve ni By ee le, se SMR Sean, Makes So rie ES ee eat ah Ein ate etic □□□□ □□ □□□ LS aa aR ERS on at TT Neen DRE ats, Sere eee WR et on, 2 Be Whe □□ Mee SReeees □ □□□ □□□ □□□□ Fel PSRs SENSE Sees Ue eS cae oe re hikes etre, Start RN One vey tee ayes hs Set ee eee □□□ □□ □ □□□□ □□ oe ee ae □□ or ek a ee = a 10.) While the Court does not discount the work that is required to prepare for effective settlement negotiations, that the parties were able to settle this matter in principle after a one-day mediation session weighs in favor of the Court’s finding that the case is not particularly complex. Public policy. “[I]n assessing the reasonableness of the requested attorneys’ fees, the court must strike the appropriate balance between promoting the important public policy that attorneys continue litigating class action cases that vindicate rights that might otherwise go unprotected, and perpetuating the public perception that class action plaintiffs’ lawyers are overcompensated for the work that they do.” Boyd, 299 F.R.D. at 466. Here, while litigating data breach cases is undoubtedly important, a large award in this case could perpetuate the public perception that plaintiffs’ lawyers are overcompensated, given how short-lived the litigation was. Lodestar cross-check. “The purpose of a lodestar cross-check is to determine whether a proposed fee award is excessive relative to the hours reportedly worked by counsel, or whether the fee is within some reasonable multiplier of the lodestar.” Singleton, 976 F. Supp. 2d at 688. “(Where the lodestar fee is used as a mere cross-check’ to the percentage method of determining reasonable attorneys’ fees, the hours documented by counsel need not be exhaustively scrutinized by the district court.” /d. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Class Counsel reports that it has incurred $397,210.50 in fees.° Class Counsel initially did not append any details regarding this $397,210.50, and the Court therefore directed them to supplement the Motion. (ECF No. 38.) Counsel provided more detailed information regarding Class Counsel’s hourly rates and time records. (See generally ECF No. 39.) Class Counsel reported that, in comparison to the $750,000 fee request, the $397,210.50 request results in a 6 At the Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel reported that it has incurred more fees since the filing of its Motion for attorneys’ fees. However, the Court references the figure provided in that Motion. 15 modest lodestar multiplier of 1.88. (ECF No. 35-1 at 11.) Given that the lodestar is only being used as a cross-check here, Court will not exhaustively scrutinize the record to determine an exact lodestar amount. See Sims v. BB&T Corp., Civ. No. 15- 732, 2019 WL 1993519, at *2 (M.D.N.C. May 6, 2019) (“When the lodestar method is used only as a cross-check, however, courts need not exhaustively scrutinize the hours documented by counsel and the reasonableness of the claimed lodestar can be tested by the court’s familiarity with the case.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).) The Court concludes that the claimed lodestar is reasonable, based upon the Court’s review of the record, including Class Counsel’s hourly rates and the time records provided. The Court also notes that courts in this Circuit routinely approve lodestar multipliers that are much higher. Ke//y, 2020 WL 434473, at *7 (“The requested fee would result in a lodestar multiplier of 2.45—well within the range routinely approved in this Circuit.”); Jones, 601 F. Supp. 2d at 766 (“Courts have generally held that lodestar multipliers falling between 2 and 4.5 demonstrate a reasonable attorneys’ fee.”); Kruger, 2016 WL 6769066, at *5 (collecting cases reflecting lodestar multipliers of 2.5 to 8.9). Conclusion. Given the foregoing—particularly the risks undertaken by counsel and the duration and complexity of the case—the Court concludes that a reduced fee award is reasonable in this case. Here, the reasonable fee award is 25% of the $2,500,000 Settlement Fund, or $625,000. This results in a lodestar multiplier of approximately 1.57. B. Costs and Expenses Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), the Court may award reasonable costs. Costs that may be charged include “those reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the attorney which are normally charged to a fee-paying client, in the course of providing legal services.” Spell v. McDaniel, 852 F.2d 762, 771 (4th Cir. 1988). “The prevailing view is that expenses are awarded in addition to the fee percentage.” Kelly, 2020 WL 434473, at *7 (citations and quotation marks 16 omitted). Expenses may include court costs, transcripts, travel, contractual personnel, photocopying, postal fees, telephone costs, and expert witness fees. /d; see also Boyd, 299 F.R.D. at 468 (approving expense request that included “filing fees, expert and mediation fees, travel costs, computer research, copies, and other miscellaneous costs,” and concluding that these expenses were “reasonable and typical”). Counsel seeks the reimbursement of $25,273.37. (ECF No. 35-1 at 13.) This includes costs associated with research, filing fees, travel, and mediation fees. (/d.) The largest fee was for mediation ($19,172.50), and the second largest was for travel costs ($2,581.69). (ECF No. 35- 2 at 11.) These costs are reasonable and typical in litigation. C. Service Award “Incentive awards are intended to compensate class representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action, and, sometimes, to recognize their willingness to act as a private attorney general.” Berry, 807 F.3d at 613 (quotation marks and citations omitted). “To determine whether an incentive payment is warranted, the court should consider ‘the actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class, the degree to which the class has benefitted from those actions, and the amount of time and effort the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation.” Decohen v. Abbasi, LLC, 299 F.R.D. 469, 483 (D. Md. 2014) (citing Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 1998)). Plaintiffs seeks an award of $15,000 in total, to be divided equally among the five Named Plaintiffs ($2,500 each). As Plaintiffs report, “an empirical study published in 2006 suggests that the average award per class representative is about $16,000.” (ECF No. 35-1 at 14.) Thus, the requested service award per Named Plaintiff is modest. The Court concludes that this is appropriate, and that the relatively low award is commensurate with the actions the Named Plaintiffs took in this case. (See ECF No. 35-2 at 12 (“Plaintiffs took active roles in the litigation, 17 including reviewing pleadings, staying in regular contact with Class Counsel about the status of the case, remaining informed about settlement discussions, being available for consultation during the mediation period, and reviewing and approving the settlement agreement.”).) IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 36) will be granted, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs and for a Service Award (ECF No. 35) will be granted in part. It will be granted as to the requests for costs and service awards; it will be granted at a reduced amount as to the request for attorneys’ fees. This case will be closed. A separate Order follows. DATED this tS day of December, 2024. BY THE COURT: LDumer Mh Lehr James K. Bredar United States District Judge
Brent v. Advanced Medical Management, LLC (Brent v. Advanced Medical Management, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.