Yoakum v. ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc

E.D. Arkansas

Yoakum v. ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc

DecidedDecember 2, 2020

Docket4:20-cv-00023

StatusUnknown

This text of Yoakum v. ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc (Yoakum v. ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yoakum v. ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc, (E.D. Ark. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

WESLEY YOAKUM, Individually and on PLAINTIFF Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

vs. No. 4:20-cv-00023-JJV

ABB MOTORS AND MECHANICAL, INC. DEFENDANT

ORDER & JUDGMENT

The Court held a fairness hearing on December 2, 2020. No objections to the proposed settlement have been filed and no objector appeared at the hearing. There were 391 potential claimants. The parties gave all the required notice, and provided all the approved forms, to class members. 74 claims were made and the value of their claims total $6,014.19 of the $34,400.00 settlement fund. After careful review of the pleadings and hearing from the parties, the Court approves the proposed settlement and grants the joint motion for final approval. (Doc. No. 20.) The agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, as required by Rule 23(e). In reaching this conclusion, the Court has considered the strength of the plaintiffs’ case, defendant’s defenses including the circuit split regarding the ability credit paid meal periods against alleged off-the-clock time, the complexity of further litigation, and the amount of opposition to the settlement, and the history of the litigation both in the Eastern District of Arkansas and elsewhere. Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685, 693-98 (8th Cir. 2017); Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604, 607 (8th Cir. 1988). The attorney’s fees are reasonable given the work done, local hourly rates, and results achieved. Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Company, 200 F.3d 1140, 1157 (8th Cir. 1999). IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1) The parties’ Jomt Motion (and Incorporated Brief) For Final Approval of the Class and Collective Action Settlement (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED; 2) The case is dismissed with prejudice; and 3) The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement. 4) A joint report on disbursements is due by February 2, 2021. SIGNED this 2nd day of December 2020. ae JOE J. □□ UNITEDSTRTES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

WESLEY YOAKUM, Individually and on PLAINTIFF Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

vs. No. 4:20-cv-00023-JJV

ABB MOTORS AND MECHANICAL, INC. DEFENDANT

ORDER & JUDGMENT

The Court held a fairness hearing on December 2, 2020. No objections to the proposed settlement have been filed and no objector appeared at the hearing. There were 391 potential claimants. The parties gave all the required notice, and provided all the approved forms, to class members. 74 claims were made and the value of their claims total $6,014.19 of the $34,400.00 settlement fund. After careful review of the pleadings and hearing from the parties, the Court approves the proposed settlement and grants the joint motion for final approval. (Doc. No. 20.) The agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, as required by Rule 23(e). In reaching this conclusion, the Court has considered the strength of the plaintiffs’ case, defendant’s defenses including the circuit split regarding the ability credit paid meal periods against alleged off-the-clock time, the complexity of further litigation, and the amount of opposition to the settlement, and the history of the litigation both in the Eastern District of Arkansas and elsewhere. Keil v. Lopez, 862 F.3d 685, 693-98 (8th Cir. 2017); Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604, 607 (8th Cir. 1988). The attorney’s fees are reasonable given the work done, local hourly rates, and results achieved. Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Company, 200 F.3d 1140, 1157 (8th Cir. 1999). IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1) The parties’ Jomt Motion (and Incorporated Brief) For Final Approval of the Class and Collective Action Settlement (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED; 2) The case is dismissed with prejudice; and 3) The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement. 4) A joint report on disbursements is due by February 2, 2021. SIGNED this 2nd day of December 2020. ae JOE J. □□ UNITEDSTRTES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Yoakum v. ABB Motors and Mechanical Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yoakum-v-abb-motors-and-mechanical-inc-ared-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack