No. 25-5464

Jaime A. Diaz ONeill v. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc.

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2025-08-25
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: attorneys-fees class-action fairness-hearing notice-requirements rule-23 settlement-approval
Key Terms:
ClassAction
Latest Conference: 2025-11-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the proposed class action settlement against Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc. meets the legal standards for fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : Case l:23-cv-03580-AKH Document 93 Filed 09/04/24 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EDUARDO ANTONIO JIMENEZ DEL Case No. 1:23-cv-03580 ROSARIO, JAYSON MERCADO, and TANEISHA LEWIS, on behalf of themselves Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BALDOR SPECIALTY FOODS, INC., Defendant. a AAviynm HTfirniiin n final approval order Before the Court is Plaintiffs ’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Motion for Final Approval ”). The Motion for Final Approval seeks approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Also before the Court is Plaintiffs ’ Renewed Unopposed Motion for Attorneys ’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses to Class Counsel, and Service Awards to Plaintiffs (“Renewed Motion for Attorneys ’ Fees”). Having reviewed and considered the Settlement Agreement, Motion for Final Approval, and Motion for Attorneys ’ Fees, and having conducted a Final Fairness Hearing, the Court makes the following findings and grants the relief set forth below approving the settlement upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Order. WHEREAS, on April 22,2024, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Preliminary Approval Order ”) (Dkt. 64; see also Dkt. 75) which, among other things, (a) conditionally certified this matter as a class action, including defining the Class and Class claims, (b) appointed Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives and appointed Raina Case l:23-cv-03580-AKH Document 93 Filed 09/04/24 Page 2 of 12 Borrelli and Brittany Resch of Strauss Borrelli PLLC as Class Counsel; (c) preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement; (d) approved the form and manner of Notice to the Settlement Class; (d) set deadlines for claims, opt-outs, arid objections; (e) approved and appointed the Settlement Administrator; and (f) set the date for the Final Fairness Hearing; WHEREAS, on May 22,2024 and July 22, 2024, pursuant to the Notice requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement and in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Class was directly notified of the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement, of the right of Settlement Class Members to opt out, and the right of Settlement Class Members to object to the Settlement Agreement and to be heard at a Final Fairness Hearing; WHEREAS, on August 21, 2024, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing to determine, inter alia: (1) whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate for the release of the claims contemplated by the Settlement Agreement; and (2) whether judgment should be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice. Prior to the Final Fairness Hearing, a declaration of compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and Preliminary Approval Order relating to notice was filed with the Court as required by the Preliminary Approval Order. See Leung Decl. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that Settlement Class Members were properly notified of their right to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing in support of or in opposition to the proposed Settlement Agreement, the award of attorneys ’ fees, costs, and expenses to Class Counsel, and the payment of a Service Awards to the Class Representatives; WHEREAS, the Court not being required to conduct a trial on the merits of the case or determine with certainty the factual and legal issues in dispute when determining whether to approve a proposed class action settlement; and 2 Case l:23-cv-03580-AKH Document 93 Filed 09/04/24 Page 3 of 12 WHEREAS, the Court being required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) to make the findings and conclusions hereinafter set forth for the limited purpose of determining whether the Settlement should be approved as being fair, reasonable, adequate an

Docket Entries

2025-11-10
Petition DENIED.
2025-10-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
2025-07-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 24, 2025)

Attorneys

Jaime A. Diaz ONeill
Jaime A. Diaz ONeill — Petitioner