NEW YORK (LN) — U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos on Thursday granted final approval of the settlement in Neor et al v. Acacia Network, Inc., certifying the settlement class and approving attorneys' fees of $1.5 million and costs of approximately $17,500.
The order, filed May 14, 2026, resolves the dispute on behalf of non-exempt individuals employed by Acacia Network and its affiliates in New York state between June 8, 2016, and December 23, 2025.
The settlement class includes current and former housing specialists, social workers, case managers, case workers, counselors, CASA counselors, and direct care staff. It excludes 12 opt-in plaintiffs who failed to appear for depositions and were dismissed for default.
Ramos confirmed the appointment of Gitou Neor and Tyrone Wallace as class representatives and certified C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group PLLC as class counsel.
The court found the settlement procedurally fair, noting it resulted from arm's-length negotiation and that class counsel adequately represented the class interests.
Ramos determined the relief was adequate given the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, as well as the effectiveness of the proposed distribution method.
The judge awarded class counsel one-third of the settlement fund, totaling $1.5 million, plus costs and expenses of $17,537.35.
Ramos cited the number of hours worked, the results achieved, the contingent nature of the representation, the complexity of the issues, a lodestar cross-check, and class counsel's recognized experience as factors supporting the fee award.
The court also found class counsel's hourly rates to be reasonable.
In addition to legal fees, Ramos approved $10,000 service awards for named plaintiffs Neor and Wallace, and $5,000 deposition awards for each of the 19 opt-in plaintiffs who were deposed.
The 12 opt-in plaintiffs who failed to appear for depositions were excluded and are not entitled to any settlement payment.
The court also approved $0.15 million in settlement administrator fees payable to Arden Claims Service, LLC, to be paid by or on behalf of the defendants.
Ramos emphasized that the settlement was entered into solely for the purpose of compromising disputed claims and that neither the order nor the settlement agreement constitutes evidence that any party has prevailed or engaged in wrongdoing.
The action was dismissed with prejudice, though the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and oversee the distribution of funds.
A final hearing will only be held if there are valid and timely objections.