Roland v. Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Rachel M Roland
Defendant: Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. and Convergys Corporation
Case Number: 1:2015cv00325
Filed: May 16, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Cincinnati Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Susan J. Dlott
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 10, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 43 FINAL ORDER: (A) APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT UNDER FRCP 23 AND (B) APPROVING CLASS COUNSEL'S FEES AND EXPENSES. Further Ordered that on the effective date, the settlement shall become binding upon the Parties and the Settlement Class. Class Coun sel is awarded fees of thirty-three and one-third (33 1/3 %) of the gross Settlement Amount of $250,000 after (1) deducting the Class Representative's service award, and (2) reimbursing Class Counsel's out of pocket costs and expe nses, including the cost of administration, which reimbursement is capped at $20,000, to be payable exclusively from the Settlement Amount. Further Ordered that the Class Representative is awarded $7,500 in addition to her pro rata share o f the Settlement, as compensation for her service on behalf of the Settlement Class, to be payable exclusively from the Settlement Amount. Further Ordered that entry of this Order is without prejudice to the relief granted in the Preliminary Order a nd entry of this Order shall not serve to extend or stay any time of filing an appeal regarding any of the relief granted in the Preliminary Order. Further Ordered that this Court shall retain jurisdiction over all matters arising pursuant to or related to the relief granted by this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 3/10/2017. (art)
March 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 41 ORDER granting plaintiff's 40 Motion for Leave to Appear by telephone at the March 9, 2017 (3:00 pm) Fairness Hearing before Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 3/8/2017. (art) Modified on 3/8/2017 to correct date previously listed in docket text (art).
October 2, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 12 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 10/2/15. (mb)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Roland v. Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Rachel M Roland
Represented By: Felix John Gora
Represented By: Jack A Raisner
Represented By: Rene S Roupinian
Represented By: Chad Ellis Willits
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Convergys Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?