Morris v. Bank of Am.


Court: United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

Case no: 3:18-CV-157-RJC-DSC

Date published: Jan 21, 2022


The court received a motion for final approval of a class action settlement and a motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and class representative service awards. The court had previously entered a preliminary approval order, preliminarily approving the settlement, determining class action status, appointing class representatives and counsel, approving the notice program, and setting a final approval hearing. Notice of the settlement was provided to all class members, including government entities. A final approval hearing was held, and the court considered the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement, as well as the application for attorneys’ fees and costs and class representative service awards.


The issue before the court was to determine whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, whether the class representatives and counsel adequately represented the class, and whether the requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards were appropriate.


The court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, considering the absence of objections, the small number of opt-outs, and the opinion of competent counsel. It determined that the notice provided to class members was sufficient and that the settlement met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and authorized the implementation of the settlement terms. It also approved the requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards. The court retained jurisdiction over the implementation of the settlement, distribution of funds, and enforcement of the settlement terms. Final judgment was entered forthwith.


The court approved the class action settlement, granted the requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards, and entered final judgment. The settlement was deemed fair, reasonable, and adequate, and the court retained jurisdiction over related matters.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 + two =