Harris et al v. Startek USA, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 22-cv-00437-RM-JPO
MAKAYLA HARRIS, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STARTEK USA, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motions for Final Approval of Settlement (ECF No. 127)
and Attorney Fees (ECF No. 128). Having considered the papers filed in support of the Motions,
the arguments of counsel, and the law, the Court now enters this Order and FINDS,
CONCLUDES, and ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and over all
parties to this action, including the Settlement Class Members, as such term is defined in the
Settlement Agreement.1
2. 	The Court has determined that the Notice given to Class Members fully and
accurately informed Class Members of all material elements of the proposed settlement,
constituted valid, due, and sufficient notice to all Class Members, and satisfied the requirements
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process.
1 All capitalized terms shall have the same meaning as defined in the Settlement Agreement.
(ECF No. 127-2.)
Case No. 1:22-cv-00437-RM-TPO Document 130 filed 11/12/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

3. 	All Class Members, except the three (3) Class Members who requested exclusion,
are bound by the settlement, including the releases contained in the Parties’ Settlement
Agreement.
4. 	The three (3) Class Members who requested exclusion from the Settlement by
properly submitting request for exclusion form by the date set by the Court are not bound by the
Settlement, have not released any claims, and will not obtain any monetary or other benefits of
the Settlement.
5. 	No Class Members submitted any objections to the Settlement.
6. 	Sommers Schwartz, P.C., is appointed as Class Counsel.
7. 	The Named Plaintiffs are appointed as Class Representatives.
8. 	The following amounts shall be distributed by the Settlement Administrator from
the Gross Settlement Amount:
a. 	Attorney fees to be paid to Class Counsel in the amount of $833,333.33;
b. 	Litigation expenses to be paid to Class Counsel in an amount not to
exceed $55,000;
c. 	Settlement administration fees to Atticus Administration, LLC, in an
amount not to exceed $81,000; and
d. 	Class Representative service awards to the Named Plaintiffs in the
cumulative amount of $51,000, which shall be distributed as follows:
i. 	$6,000 each to: Makayla Harris, Colleen Lewin, and Tiffany
Williams; and
ii. 	$1,500 each to: Daniel Colwill Mauch, Kristopher Flagg, Matthew
Berg, Alicia Jenkins, Anissa Bates, Brittany Young, Kimberly
Pitney, Dawn Badger, Paula Kemp, Rhonda Davis, Tiffany
Patterson , Brittney Christian, Phanthasia King, Tauri Schuler-
Bonner, Amelia Kurtz, Matthew Pavey, Rachel Dubose, Lexus
Ransom, Claudine Miudo. Richard Dean, Stephanie St. George,
and Sasha Ransey.
9. 	The Court grants final approval of the Settlement of this action in accordance with
the terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate in all respects.
Case No. 1:22-cv-00437-RM-TPO Document 130 filed 11/12/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
10. 	The Court hereby dismisses this action, and all claims and causes of action
asserted therein, on the merits and with prejudice, as to Plaintiffs and all Class Members. This
dismissal is without costs to any party, except as specifically provided in the Settlement
Agreement.
11. 	Without affecting the finality of this Order in any way, the Court retains
jurisdiction over: (a) implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, pursuant to
further orders of the Court until each and every act agreed to be performed by the parties hereto
shall have been performed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement; (b) any other action necessary
to conclude this settlement and to implement the Settlement Agreement; and (c) the enforcement,
construction, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement.
12. 	This Order is not a finding of the validity or invalidity of any claims in this action
or a determination of any wrongdoing by Defendant. The final approval of the Settlement
Agreement does not constitute any opinion, position, or determination of this Court as to the
merits of the claims and defenses of Defendant, Plaintiffs, or the Class Members.
13. 	The terms of the Settlement Agreement remain binding upon the parties thereto,
who are directed to implement its provisions.
14. 	The Clerk is directed to enter FINAL JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms
of the Settlement Agreement, the Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 124) entered on July 18, 2025, and this Order.
It is SO ORDERED.
DATED this 12th day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
Senior United States District Judge
Case No. 1:22-cv-00437-RM-TPO Document 130 filed 11/12/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3