United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
LETCH G. DAY, et al., Plaintiffs,
AIR METHODS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION AND PRELIMINARY ORDER OF APPROVAL
HORN BOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(“Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate
Judge Matthew A. Stinnett. [R. 113] Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B)-(C), the Court referred the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Class Certification and
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
(“Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Approval”) [R. 105] for findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and recommendation. [R. 107] Magistrate Judge
Stinnett also conducted a status conference in this matter
and ordered supplemental briefing. See [R. 107; R.
108; R. 110] Thereafter, the parties filed a Joint Supplement
to Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Class Certification
and Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement. [R. 112] In
his Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Stinnett recommended
that the Court find as follows:
1. That the Court will likely be able to approve the
Settlement Agreement on behalf of all current and former
flight nurses and flight paramedics employed by AMC in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky at any time from March 22, 2012,
through the date the Court enters an Order of preliminary
2. That the Court will likely be able to certify the proposed
Class for the purposes of judgment on the proposed Settlement
3. The Court approve the proposed Notice and Opt-out forms
set forth in [R. 105-2] with the changes noted in his
Recommendation at [R. 113, at pp. 21-22];
4. The Court approve a website and First Class United States
Postal Mail as means of distributing notice to the Class
Members, to be disseminated within 60 days of the entry of
the Order of preliminary approval; and
5. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before the District
Court at the discretion of the Court with the Court to
establish any and all necessary interim deadlines as
described in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.
Court conducts a de novo review of the portions of a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a
party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court is not
required to review claims in which neither party objects to
the findings of the magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Magistrate Judge Stinnett
instructed the Parties to file objections to the
Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from its entry
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42 and 28 U.S.C. § 363(b) and
(c). See id. at p. 23. Neither party has filed
objections to the Recommendation, and the time to do so has
passed. Id. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the
parties' filings, the Settlement Agreement, and the
Recommendation fully. Therefore, and with the Court being
sufficiently advised, the Court will ACCEPT
and ADOPT Magistrate Judge Stinnett's
Report and Recommendation [R. 113] as the
Opinion of this Court. It is FURTHER ORDERED
1. Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Class Certification
and Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
[R. 105] is GRANTED subject
to the modifications adopted in the Court's
Report and Recommendation [R.
113], and the Parties' proposed settlement is
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the implementation and
administration of the Settlement Agreement.
3. The class defined in the Parties' Settlement Agreement
[R. 105-2, Ex. A, Settlement Agreement, Ex. A-2, at
p. 2] is CONDITIONALLY APPROVED for
settlement purposes, including $900, 000.00 in attorney's
fees. Additionally, the schedule set forth in the Settlement
Agreement is APPROVED.
4. Letch G. Day is APPOINTED as class
5. Counsel for Named Plaintiffs, Charles W. Arnold and
Christopher D. Miller of Arnold & Miller, PLC and J.
Robert Cowan of Cowan Law Office, PLC ...