Page 32 - CLT081020

32 ¦ AUGUST 10, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

U.S. DISTRICT COURT Defendant manufactured microwave ovens which
suffered glass breakage and caused damage to a
large population of potential plaintiffs. The plain-
tiffs were awarded class certification and agreed to
ATTORNEY RATES AND ARRANGEMENTS • a settlement with defendants. The court granted
CLASS ACTIONS final approval of the Settlement and ordered the
Settlement Agreement to be incorporated, finding
Court Grants And Adjusts Attorneys’ that notice was proper, class certification was ap-
Fees and Service Awards propriate, confirmed final appointment of parties,
and found the settlement fair and reasonable.
CASE: Strauch v. Computer Sciences Corp.
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:14-cv-956 CONTRACTS

COURT OPINION BY: Arterton Court Granted Defendant’s Motion
DATE: July 27, 2020 • PAGES: 47
Plaintiffs brought a class action against their to Enforce Settlement Agreement in
former employer for overtime misclassification Sexual Assault Tort Case
under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The jury
returned a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor, making a CASE: John Doe v. Hotchkiss Sch.
specific finding that defendant acted willfully. COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
After a Special Master was brought in to calcu- DOC. NO.: 3:15-cv-160
late damages, plaintiffs brought post-judgment COURT OPINION BY: Bolden
motions for service awards and attorneys’ fees, DATE: July 24, 2020 • PAGES: 22
and the court granted the motions with modifi-
cations. Defendants argued that the class coun- Plaintiff sued defendant for tort claims related to
sel’s rates were unreasonable for the District of sexual abuse. The court did not discuss the under-
Connecticut, and they were attempting to uti- lying facts of the lawsuit. After the withdrawal of
lize out-of-forum rates. The court disagreed, plaintiff’s third set of counsel, defendant moved
finding the complexity of the issues and the to enforce the current settlement agreement. After
multi-state plaintiff class warranted an award obtaining his fourth attorney, plaintiff moved to
higher than the forum spectrum. However, the enforce a settlement agreement allegedly entered
court reduced the hourly rate to the higher end into on August 27, 2019, and confirmed by a
of the spectrum where class counsel presented signed agreement. The court granted defendant’s
no evidence to support their rate. Defendants motion to enforce the current settlement agree-
also argued that the number of hours billed was ment and denied plaintiff’s motion to enforce the
excessive, reflecting overstaffing and duplicative prior settlement agreement. The court first ana-
work. The court agreed, finding some matters lyzed the August 27, 2019, agreement. It noted that
were overstaffed or the billing entries too vague the memorandum of understanding, which was
for reasonableness. The court also reduced fees the basis for this agreement, lacked relevant terms.
for travel time and out-of-pocket expenses in- Based on the clear and unambiguous language of
curred by class counsel. The court granted post- the memorandum of understanding, the docu-
judgment interest and approved service awards ment did not constitute a final binding settlement
to class representatives. agreement because “a release and documentation
were to follow.” Furthermore, the parties contin-
ued to negotiate in the months following, suggest-
ing they anticipated the execution of a final settle-
CLASS ACTIONS ment agreement. The court then turned to the cur-

Court Grants Final Judgment And rent settlement agreement. It discussed how this
agreement contained all the relevant terms, such
Approval Of Class Action Settlement as the specific terms of the release and the precise
Agreement language of the apology. There was no issue as to
whether the plaintiff was bound by this current
agreement, because he signed his name and had
CASE: Grayson v. Gen. Elec. Co. complete knowledge of all the material facts con-
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut nected with the agreement. Therefore, the court
DOC. NO.: 3:13-cv-01799 determined that the current settlement agreement
COURT OPINION BY: Shea was enforceable, and granted defendant’s motion.
DATE: July 27, 2020 • PAGES: 8

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune