DAVID D. NOCE, Magistrate Judge.
This matter came before the court on August 29, 2014 for a hearing on plaintiff's unopposed motion (Doc. 81) for approval of the settlement of this case and the approval of the release of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The parties have consented to the exercise of plenary authority by the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The court has considered the materials filed in support of the motion and the undisputed factual information presented at the hearing, and from this record makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. This is a collective class action, brought under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b),
2. The issues presented in this action involved the classification of the subject employees as not exempt or exempt from the relevant provisions of the FLSA; and the action involved the method of calculation of the relevant hours and damages. These issues were strongly contested by the parties. Previously, the defendants reviewed this issue with the United States Department of Labor, which stated that defendants' position was incorrect; defendants disputed this determination. The amount in controversy between the class and the defendants substantially exceeded $1 Million.
3. The parties negotiated in good faith during the progress of this action to achieve a mediated,
4. The settlement agreement also provides for reasonable attorney's fees and expenses for the ISI plaintiff class counsel, which are to be paid by the defendant employer. The ISI plaintiff class has been fairly and competently represented by the Lear Werts LLP law firm during the court proceedings and during the Alternative Dispute Resolution proceedings which led to the settlement of the action. Class counsel have expended monies, described in the exhibits to the settlement agreement, on behalf of the class. These expenditures and the amount of counsel hours recorded are fair and reasonable and are properly reimbursable from the settlement proceeds. In this common fund case the agreed upon percentage-of-recovery method is preferable to the usual lodestar method for determining reasonable attorney's fees and expenses.
5. The parties have proposed a third-party administrator to notify the class members of the settlement and to distribute the settlement funds from an escrow account established for this purpose. This arrangement is acceptable and fair.
6. Given the agreement of the parties that distribution of the settlement amounts will occur over time, the parties have agreed that this federal district court would retain both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the enforcement of the parties' settlement agreement.
The court's duty in reviewing the agreement between the ISI plaintiff class and the defendants is to determine whether the settlement of this collective class action (a) resulted from contested litigation to resolve an actual controversy between the employees and the employer, and (b) is fair, reasonable, and adequately protects the best interests of the ISI plaintiff class members and the defendants.
The facts set forth above express the court's belief and conclusions that the litigation that led to the settlement was an actual dispute that was strongly contested; the settlement is fair, reasonable, and protects the best interests of the parties; and the amounts of the agreed upon attorney's fees and expenses for the plaintiff class counsel are reasonable.
Therefore,