SMITH et al v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
LISA SMITH on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated,
)
)
ELISA STROFFOLINO on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated,
)
)
JOEL KAMISHER, 	)
DOTTIE NIKOLICH, 	)
SABRINA MUNOZ, 	)
HILARY FRENCH, 	)
AMY CLARK, 	)
REGINALD REESE, 	)
SONYA ALBERT, 	)
COLLEEN RICKARD, 	)
KRISTINA ACCARDO, 	)
ROGER WINSTANLEY, 	)
BONNIE BENNETT, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB
)
APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
)
FINAL CLASS SETTLEMENT APPROVAL ORDER
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Apria Healthcare LLC was the subject of a
data breach in 2023 that affected millions of individuals. 	Dkt. 52. 	Plaintiffs
have asked the Court for final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement
and Release, dkt. 137, and to award attorneys' fees, dkt. 136. 	The Court has
considered counsels' arguments that were presented at the November 4, 2025,
Fairness Hearing and the filings submitted in support of approval, dkts. 136,
138, 141. 	For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Unopposed
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Motion for Final Approval, dkt. [137], and the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, dkt.
[136], and APPROVES the Settlement Agreement.
I.
Facts and Background
On October 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed its amended consolidated class action
complaint. 	Dkt. 52. 	In it, Plaintiffs allege that Apria Healthcare, a home
healthcare equipment provider, admitted that it suffered a data breach that
affected millions of its patients and customers between April and May of 2019
and August and October of 2021 (the "Illegal Hacking Events"). 	Id. at 7 ¶ 43, 8
¶ 46; dkt. 134-2 at 6 (Settlement Agreement and Release § 1.21). 	The Illegal
Hacking Events compromised the private information of over 1.8 million Apria
Healthcare patients. 	Dkt. 52 at 8 ¶ 46. 	This information included "Social
Security 	numbers, 	personal 	details, 	medical 	records, 	health 	insurance
information, and financial data." 	Id.
Plaintiffs allege that Apria Healthcare became aware of the Illegal Hacking
Events in September 2021 but did not disclose the breach to customers until
May 2023. 	Id. at 8–9 ¶ 48. 	Plaintiffs further allege that Apria Healthcare had a
duty to adopt reasonable measures to protect Plaintiffs' protected information
from involuntary disclosure to third parties. See id. For relief, "Plaintiffs demand
that Apria compensate Settlement Class Members for their losses and protect
their identities." 	Dkt. 134-1 at 3.
The Court preliminary certified the settlement class action, and approved
notice and the procedure for notice to potential Class Members. 	Dkt. 135.
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
(Preliminary 	Approval 	Order).1 	The 	Court 	also 	preliminarily 	approved 	the
twenty-one proposed Class Representatives: Lisa Smith, Robert N. Herrera,
Suzanne 	Cuyle, 	Leonardo 	DePinto, 	Joel 	Kamisher, 	Debbie 	Bobbitt, 	Dottie
Nikolich, Sabrina Munoz, Hilary French, Elisa Stroffolino, Amy Clark, Reginald
Reese, Rita May, Tammie Creek, Sonya Albert, Paul Kramer, Chad Hohenbery,
Colleen Rickard, Kristinia Accardo, Roger Winstanley, and Bonnie Bennett. 	Id.
at 3. 	The preliminary certified class includes:
[A]ll individuals who received actual or constructive notice and/or
were mailed a notice by Apria that their information may have been
compromised as a result of the Illegal Hacking Events and/or as a
result of prior unauthorized access to or disclosure of Protected
Information. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges
presiding over the Class Action Lawsuit, members of their staff, and
members 	of 	their 	direct 	families; 	(2) 	Defendant 	and 	any 	other
Releasee; (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request
for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline.
Id. Last, the Court preliminarily approved Class Counsel. Id. at 13.
To settle the claims in this case, Apria agreed to pay $6,375,000 into
a non-reversionary cash fund. 	Dkt. 134-2 at 10–12 §§ 1.48, 2.2, 2.5
(Settlement Agreement and Release). 	The Plaintiffs propose to deduct the
following from that amount: a $3,000 service award to each of the twenty-
one 	Class 	Representatives 	for 	a 	total 	of 	$63,000, 	id. 	at 	22 	§ 	15.3;
$1,699,212.44 in attorneys' fees to Class Counsel, id. at § 15.1; dkt. 136-
1 at 3; $39,897.57 for reimbursement of litigation costs to Class Counsel,
1 The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the analysis and findings set forth in
the Preliminary Approval Order, dkt. 135.
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
id., and $1,211,210.082 for the quoted costs of notice and administration,
dkts. 134-2 at 13 § 4.1; 141 at 2.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Class Members may submit
a claim for up to $2,000 for reimbursement of out-of-pocket monetary
losses or expenses that are traceable and reasonably resulting from the
Illegal 	Hacking 	Event. 	Dkt. 	134-2 	at 	12 	§ 	3.1. 	To 	receive 	this
reimbursement, 	Class 	Members 	must 	submit 	a 	Claim 	Form 	that 	(i)
includes third-party documentation of the loss and (ii) a brief description
of the documentation and loss if it is not apparent from the documentation
alone. 	Id. at 12–13 § 3.2. 	These Claim Forms must be submitted on or
before the date that is 90 days after entry of this Final Order Approving
the Settlement and Judgment. 	Id. at 13 § 3.2.
After the distribution of out-of-pocket reimbursements, attorneys'
fees, litigation costs, costs of notice and administration, and payment to
the Class Representatives, the Settlement Administrator shall make cash
settlement payments on a pro rata basis to each Settlement Class Member
who submitted a valid claim for the benefit. 	Id. at 13 § 4.1. 	Lastly, Apria
has 	agreed 	to 	make 	Business 	Practice 	Adjustments 	to 	enhance:
cybersecurity training and awareness, data security policies, security
measures, 	further 	restriction 	of 	access 	to 	personal 	information, 	and
monitoring and response capability. 	Id. at 15 § 7.1. 	Apria shall bear the
2 At the time of the hearing, the estimated notice and administration cost was
$1,174,465.12. Dkts. 136-1 at 4; 140. However, the quoted estimation has now
increased to $1,211,210.08. Dkt. 141 at 2 ¶ 3.
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
costs of these adjustments and shall modify the adjustments as necessary
to ensure appropriate security. 	Id. at 15–16 § 7.2.
At the fairness hearing on November 4, 2025, the parties confirmed
that 42,378 class members submitted claims (a 2.28% claims rate), 26
Class Members opted out, and there were no objections. Dkt. 140-1 (claim
administrator's 	report). 	The 	Court 	ordered 	the 	Plaintiffs 	to 	submit
supplemental briefing to their Motion for Fees, Expenses, and Costs, on
the 	reasonableness 	of 	the 	$1,211,210.08 	requested 	by 	the 	Claims
Administrator. 	Dkt. 140 at 1.
II.
Legal Standard
Class actions were designed as "an exception to the usual rule that
litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only."
Gen. Tel. Co. of the S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 155 (1987) (quoting Califano v.
Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700 (1979)); see also Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527
U.S. 815, 832 (1999) ("In drafting Rule 23(b), the Advisory Committee sought to
catalogue in functional terms those recurrent life patterns which call for mass
litigation through representative parties.").
Any settlement that results in the dismissal of a class action requires court
approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); Reynolds v. Beneficial Nat'l Bank, 288 F.3d
277, 279 (7th Cir. 2002). After preliminary review and a hearing, a "district court
may approve a settlement of a class action if it concludes that it is 'fair,
reasonable, and adequate.'" Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel, 877 F.3d 276, 283
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
(7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)). "[D]istrict courts should act as
the ‘fiduciary of the class,’ subject to the high duty of care that the law requires
of fiduciaries." Id.
III.
Analysis
A. Class Certification
"Rule 23 gives the district courts 'broad discretion to determine whether
certification of a class-action lawsuit is appropriate,'" Arreola v. Godinez, 546
F.3d 788, 794 (7th Cir. 2009), and "provides a one-size-fits-all formula for
deciding the class-action question," Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 399 (2010). 	"A class 'may only be certified if the
trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule
23(a) have been satisfied,' and 'actual, not presumed, conformance with Rule
23(a) remains . . . indispensable.'" 	Davis v. Hutchins, 321 F.3d 641, 649 (7th
Cir. 2003) (quoting Gen. Tel., 457 U.S. at 160–61); see also Livingston v. Assocs.
Fin., Inc., 339 F.3d 553, 558 (7th Cir. 2003).
A plaintiff seeking class certification must satisfy each requirement of Rule
23(a)—numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation—
and any one subsection of Rule 23(b). 	Harper v. Sheriff of Cook Cty., 581 F.3d
511, 513 (7th Cir. 2009); Arreola, 546 F.3d at 794. 	In addition, the class must
meet two implied prerequisites of Rule 23: (1) that the class definition be
sufficiently precise to enable a court to ascertain the identity of class members
by reference to objective criteria; and (2) that the named representative be a
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
member of the proposed class. Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 565 F.2d
975, 977 (7th Cir. 1977).
The fact that the parties have reached a settlement is relevant to the class-
certification analysis. 	See Smith v. Sprint Comms. Co., L.P., 387 F.3d 612, 614
(7th Cir. 2004); Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 618–20 (1997).
"'Confronted with a request for settlement-only class certification, a district court
need 	not 	inquire 	whether 	the 	case, 	if 	tried, 	would 	present 	intractable
management problems, for the proposal is that there be no trial.'" 	Smith, 387
F.3d at 614 (quoting Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 620). A court may not, however,
"abandon the Federal Rules merely because a settlement seems fair,
or even if the settlement is a 'good deal.' 	In some ways, the Rule 23
requirements may be even more important for settlement classes." 	Uhl v.
Thoroughbred Tech. & Telecomms., Inc., 309 F.3d 978, 985 (7th Cir. 2002).
"This is so because certification of a mandatory settlement class, however
provisional technically, effectively concludes the proceeding save for the final
fairness hearing." 	Ortiz, 527 U.S. at 849.
The Court previously analyzed these factors and gave preliminary approval
to class certification. 	Dkt. 135. 	The same reasons that supported the Court's
preliminary approval of class certification also support final certification of the
class. 	Id. at 9–11.
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
B. Appointment of Class Counsel
After a court certifies a Rule 23 class, the court is required to appoint class
counsel 	to 	represent 	the 	class 	members. 	See Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	23(g)(1). 	In
appointing class counsel, the court must consider:
(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential
claims in the action;
(ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation,
and the types of claims asserted in the action;
(iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and
(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A).
The Court previously considered these factors and designated Lynn A.
Toops of Cohen & Malad LLP and Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson
Phillips Grossman PLLC as class counsel. 	Dkt. 135 at 15. 	There are no new
facts that weigh against this decision.
C. Notice
For settlement classes, "the court must direct notice in a reasonable
manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(e)(1)(B). The Preliminary Approval Order approved the content of the notice
and proposed manner of notice. Dkt. 135 at 18–19. The Court now grants final
approval of the notice, which adequately informed the Class members of the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, the process available to obtain monetary
relief, their right to request exclusion from the Class, and their opportunity to
file written objections and appear to be heard at the Final Approval hearing. Dkt.
138-1 at 14–23. The Settlement Administrator, Frank Ballard of Kroll Settlement
Administration LLC, used direct mailing of notice to putative class members and
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
established a phone number, email, and website to communicate and receive
Class Member inquiries, which was included in the Class Notice. 	Dkt. 138-1 at
2–4 ¶¶ 5–9 (Ballard Decl.)
The parties have since followed the manner of notice set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order. 	Dkt. 138-1. 	The
notices were mailed to 1,617,206 Class Members. Dkt. 138-1 at 4 ¶ 9. 176,665
Notices were returned as undeliverable. 	Id. at ¶ 11. 	Of those, Kroll found
updated addresses for 102,995 and re-mailed to those addresses. 	Id. 	From
those, 435 were returned as undeliverable. 	Id. 	In sum, 1,543,101 of the
1,832,439 Settlement Class Members received direct mail Notice, which equates
to approximately 83.00% of the class. 	Id. at ¶ 12. 	Thus, the Court approves
manner of notice to class members under the requirements of Fed. R. Civ P. Rule
23(e)(1)(B).
D. Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs
i. 	Attorney's Fees
Under 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	23(h), 	"the 	court 	may 	award
reasonable attorney's fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by
the parties’ agreement." 	"In assessing the reasonableness of an attorney fee
award for a class action settlement, district courts should do their best to award
counsel the market price for legal services, in light of the risk of nonpayment and
the normal rate of compensation in the market at the time." 	Camp Drug Store,
Inc. v. Cochran Wholesale Pharm., Inc., 897 F.3d 825, 832–33 (7th Cir. 2018).
When considering reasonableness, district courts may consider the award either
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
as a percentage of the fund or through the lodestar method. Americana Art China
Co. v. Foxfire Printing & Packaging, Inc., 743 F.3d 243, 247 (7th Cir. 2014).
Here, applying the percentage of fund method, Class Counsel is requesting
an attorney's fee award that represents 33.57% of the overall fund.3
Requests for one-third of the settlement are within the normal rate of
compensation for data breach class action settlements in the Seventh Circuit.
In re TikTok, Inc., Consumer Priv. Litig., 617 F. Supp. 3d 904, 941 (N.D. Ill. 2022)
(granting one-third fee in data breach case noting "[a] one-third flat fee is also
routine for class action settlements in similarly complex fields"). 	Although the
fee requested is slightly above 33.33%, an attorney's fee award of 33.57% is
within range of the typical contingency fee charged by class action lawyers.
Gaskill v. Gordon, 160 F.3d 361, 362 (7th Cir. 1998) ("The typical contingent fee
is between 33 and 40 percent."); see also In re Forefront Data Breach Litig., No.
21-cv-887, 2023 WL 6215366, at *8 (W.D. Wis. 2023) (finding a fee amounting
to 41% of settlement fund in a data breach case as reasonable).
3 The "ratio that is relevant to assessing the reasonableness of the attorneys' fee that
the parties agreed to is the ratio of (1) the fee to (2) the fee plus what the class
members received." Redman v. RadioShack, 768 F.3d 622, 630 (7th Cir. 2014). The
value of the settlement is the amount minus the fee requested, the administration and
notice costs, litigation costs, and approved service awards. Id. at 630. Here, to
calculate the value that will go to Class Members, take the total class value
($6,375,000.00) minus the requested fees ($1,699,212.44), minus litigation expenses
($39,897.57) minus the quoted costs of notice and administration ($1,211,210.08)
minus the requested service awards ($63,000 total), which equals $3,361,679.91. To
calculate the percentile of the attorneys' fees, take the requested amount of fees
($1,699,212.44) over the total class value plus requested fee ($3,361,679.91 +
$1,699,212.44), which equals 33.57%.
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 10 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

11
Therefore, the Court approves as reasonable an attorneys' fee award of
$1,699,212.44.
ii. 	Settlement Administrator Costs
Plaintiffs 	request 	an 	estimated 	$1,211,210.08 	in 	costs 	of 	notice 	and
administration. Dkts. 136-1 at 4, n. 1; 141 at 2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Costs, and Mr. Ballard's Declaration, did not include itemization or
explanation on the reasonableness of these requested costs, id.; dkt. 138-1
(Ballard Decl.), so the Court therefore ordered Plaintiffs to file a supplemental
brief explaining the reasonableness of these costs and how much of that amount
is for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. 	Dkt. 140. 	Plaintiffs filed a
supplemental 	declaration 	from 	Mr. 	Ballard 	which 	explained 	that 	Kroll
Administration, LLC has billed, as of November 6, 2025, $982,265.60 for services
and 	fees 	and 	anticipates 	billing 	an 	additional 	$228,944.48, 	for 	a 	total 	of
$1,211,210.08. 	Dkt. 141 at 2. 	Mr. Ballard itemized these costs:
Id. Mr. Ballard then explained that the high costs associated with the notice and
administration reflects the large scope of the Settlement Class, 1,868,598 Class
Members, which amounted significant costs in mailing expenses and postage.
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 11 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

12
Id. Additionally, Mr. Ballard explains that the anticipated future costs reflect the
anticipated time and cost of re-mailing notices, mailing deficiency notices, and
the distribution of claims. Id.
The notice and administration costs requested here are similar to those
requested and granted in other cases with similar class sizes, and otherwise
appear reasonable. 	In re Advoc. Aurora Health Pixel Litig., 740 F. Supp. 3d 736,
757 (E.D. Wis. 2024) (notice and administration costs of $5,152,929.51 for
notification to 2.5 million class members); Meyenburg v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No.
3:05-cv-15-DGW, 2006 WL 5062697 (S.D. Ill. 2006) (approving notice costs of
$1.2 million for "a nationwide class . . . which potentially has thousands of
members"). Therefore, the Court approves the requested $1,211,210.08 in notice
and administration costs as reasonable.
E. Final Settlement Approval
The Court may approve the settlement only after finding that it is "fair,
reasonable, and adequate." 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). 	Rule 23(e)(2) requires the
Court to consider whether (1) the class representatives and class counsel have
adequately represented the class, (2) the proposal was negotiated at arm's length,
(3) the relief provided by the settlement is adequate, and (4) the proposal treats
class members equitably relative to each other. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit
has also identified the following factors as considerations under Rule 23(e)(2):
"(1) the strength of the case for plaintiffs on the merits, balanced against the
extent of settlement offer; (2) the complexity, length, and expense of further
litigation; (3) the amount of opposition to the settlement; (4) the reaction of
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 12 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

13
members of the class to the settlement; (5) the opinion of competent counsel;
and (6) stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed." 	Wong
v. Accretive Health, Inc., 773 F.3d 859, 863 (7th Cir. 2014)
The Court previously considered these factors in connection with granting
preliminary approval to the Settlement Agreement. 	Dkt. 135 at 14–18. 	At the
fairness hearing, the Court heard additional arguments from counsel on "the
strength of the case for plaintiffs on merits, balanced against the extent of the
settlement offer." 	Wong, 773 F.3d at 859. 	This is "[t]he most important factor
relevant to the fairness of a class action settlement." 	Synfuel Techs, Inc. v. DHL
Express (USA), Inc., 463 F.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir. 2006).
In balancing the strength of the plaintiffs' case against the amount offered
in a proposed settlement, district courts "should begin by quantifying the net
expected value of continued litigation to the class . . . [t]o do so, the court should
'estimate the range of possible outcomes and ascribe a probability to each point
on the range.'" Synfuel, 463 F.3d at 653 (citing Reynolds v. Beneficial Nat'l Bank,
288 F.3d 277, 279 (7th Cir. 2002). 	However, more recently, the Circuit has
clarified that "the Synfuel/Reynolds evaluation of potential outcomes need not
always be quantified, particularly where there are other reliable indicators that
the settlement reasonably reflects the merits of the case." 	Kaufman v. Am.
Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 877 F.3d 276, 285 (7th Cir. 2017). 	Other
reliable indicators include extensive arm's-length negotiations with a third-party
mediator, and the parties contentiously litigating a motion to dismiss. 	Wong,
773 F.3d at 864.
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 13 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

14
Here, 	considering 	the 	parties' 	filings 	and 	arguments 	at 	the 	fairness
hearing, the Court is satisfied that this case bears these reliable indicators of
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy. Specifically, this Settlement Agreement
was reached at a Settlement Conference with Magistrate Judge Barr after a
previously unsuccessful formal mediation with Judge Wayne R. Andersen. Dkt.
136-1 at 2–3. 	Further, this case was contentiously litigated, Defendants filed a
partial motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) arguing that some of the named
Plaintiffs agreed to arbitration under their employment agreements. See dkt. 59.
That motion was stayed, however, for the Settlement Conference. Dkts. 97; 109.
Last, Plaintiffs' counsel enumerated at the fairness hearing and in their
supporting briefs that they undertook a significant risk in bringing this litigation,
because data breach cases often face significant risks in proceeding past the
motion to dismiss phase, and courts "have not settled on whether plaintiffs can
certify classes or survive summary judgment" in these cases. 	Dkt. 134-1; see
Fox v. Iowa Health Sys., No. 3:18-cv-00327-JDP, 2021 WL 826741, at *5 (W.D.
Wis. 2021) ("Data breach litigation is evolving; there is no guarantee of the
ultimate result."). 	Here, considering the risks and the real benefits provided to
the Class Members at this time—up to $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses with
documented proof and pro rata payments without proof—the strength of the
Plaintiffs' case compared to the Defendants' proposed relief weighs in favor of
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement Agreement.
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 14 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

15
For these reasons, and the reasons that supported the Court's preliminary
approval 	of 	class 	certification, 	dkt. 	135 	at 	14–17, 	the 	Settlement 	is 	fair,
reasonable, and adequate.
IV.
Conclusion
The 	Joint 	Motion 	for 	Final 	Approval 	of 	Class 	Action 	Settlement 	and
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees are GRANTED. 	Dkts. [136] and [137].
After holding a hearing, the Court GRANTS FINAL APPROVAL of the class
settlement as a fair, adequate, and reasonable compromise of a bona fide dispute
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). 	Plaintiffs and Apria, and their
counsel, are directed to implement and consummate the Settlement Agreement
according to its terms and conditions.
The Court further finds and orders as follows:
1. The previously certified Class is finally certified under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes.
2. The Court confirms the appointments of (a) Named Plaintiffs Lisa Smith,
Robert N. Herrera, Suzanne Cuyle, Leonardo DePinto, Joel Kamisher,
Debbie Bobbitt, Dottie Nikolich, Sabrina Munoz, Hilary French, Elisa
Stroffolino, Amy Clark, Reginald Reese, Rita May, Tammie Creek, Sonya
Albert, Paul Kramer, Chad Hohenbery, Colleen Rickard, Kristinia Accardo,
Roger Winstanley, and Bonnie Bennett as Class Representatives of the
Settlement Class, (b) Lynn A. Toops of Cohen & Malad LLP and Gary M.
Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC as Class
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 15 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>

16
Counsel, and (c) Kroll Settlement Administration, LLC as the Settlement
Administrator of the claims process.
3. Per the Settlement Agreement, Apria agrees to pay $6,375,000 into a non-
reversionary cash fund. From that amount, the Court approves: a $3,000
service award to each of the Class Representatives, for a total of $63,000;
$1,699,212.44 	in 	attorneys' 	fees 	to 	Class 	Counsel, 	$39,897.57 	for
reimbursement of litigation costs to Class Counsel, and $1,211,210.08 for
the quoted costs of notice and administration. 	These payments shall be
made from the Settlement Fund according to the procedures set forth in
the Settlement Agreement.
4. The Class Members shall receive their settlement shares according to the
procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
5. The Court orders that all Class Members are bound by the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and fully release and discharge their claims.
Based on this settlement, this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Final judgment will issue by separate entry.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
All electronically registered counsel.
Date: 11/17/2025
Case 1:23-cv-01003-JPH-KMB Document 142 Filed 11/17/25 Page 16 of 16 PageID
#: <pageID>