McDowell v. Pluto Acquisition Opco, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VIDAL MCDOWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
PLUTO ACQUISITION OPCO, LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-12827
Honorable Robert J. White
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
THIS MATTER came before the Court on October 20, 2025, upon the parties’
Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement. (ECF No. 47). Having considered
the Settlement, all papers and proceedings held herein, and having reviewed the
record and heard counsel’s arguments in support thereof, the Court finds:
1. Notice of the Settlement and the Final Fairness Hearing was provided
to the Class pursuant to the Court’s Order of Preliminary Approval. No Class
Members objected to the Settlement, and only one person opted out of the
Settlement, presumably to preserve FCRA claims other than those being resolved by
way of this Settlement. No Class Members were present at the Final Fairness
Case 2:23-cv-12827-RJW-APP ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 6

2
Hearing. Thus, the Court finds that notice having been provided, there are no
objections to the Settlement.
2. The Court finds the Settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate as
required by Rule 23(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. Specifically, Class Counsel and Plaintiff,
Mr. McDowell, have adequately represented the Class; the Settlement was
negotiated at arms-length through a well-respected mediator, the Hon. Diane Welsh,
and the terms of settlement agreed to after extensive arms-length negotiations; the
relief provided is adequate; and Class Members are being treated equitably relative
to each other.
3. The Court finds the costs, risks and potential delay of trial and appeal
support the Settlement and immediate relief to the Settlement Classes. The Court
recognizes Plaintiff and the Settlement Classes were pursuing claims under
infrequently litigated provisions of the FCRA and faced significant obstacles to
obtaining an outcome of equal or better terms than presently before the Court for
approval. With this Settlement, all risk is removed, and Class Members are obtaining
injunctive relief and the K-Notice Payment Class is receiving a monetary award that
exceed those typically recovered in FCRA notice class actions.
4. The Court also finds the proposed method of distributing relief also
supports the adequacy of the Settlement.
Case 2:23-cv-12827-RJW-APP ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 6

3
5. The Court finds the attorney’s fees do not undermine the adequacy of
relief to the Class Members.
6. In Gascho, the Sixth Circuit re-iterated the seven factors guiding the
Court’s inquiry in determining whether a class action settlement should be approved.
Those factors are (1) “the risk of fraud or collusion;” (2) the “complexity, expense
and likely duration of the litigation;” (3) the “amount of discovery engaged in by the
parties;” (4) the “likelihood of success on the merits;” (5) the “opinions of class
counsel and class representatives;” (6) the “reaction of absent class members;” and
(7) “the public interest.” Gascho v. Glob. Fitness Holdings, LLC, 822 F.3d 269, 276-
77 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1065 (2017) (quoting Int'l Union, United
Auto., Aerospace, & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497
F.3d 615, 631 (6th Cir. 2007)).
7. The Court finds there is no evidence the Settlement is a product of fraud
or collusion.
8. As detailed above, this was a complex class action with scarce
precedent by which to evaluate the probability of success on the merits or predict
whether a jury would award statutory damages. Furthermore, there were a litany of
possible pitfalls at the class certification stage, the summary judgment stage, trial
and with respect to damages. Here, the Settlement removes all risk, ensures future
Case 2:23-cv-12827-RJW-APP ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 6

4
compliance, and results in monetary payments to 18,952 K-Notice Payment Class
members. This factor weighs in favor of final approval.
9. Class Counsel is experienced in FCRA class actions and conducted
multiple rounds of written discovery, subpoenaed documents from third parties, and
took the deposition of Defendant’s corporate representative. The Court finds Class
Counsel had sufficient information to evaluate the claims before it agreed to
settlement terms.
10. As addressed above, the Court finds the likelihood of success on the
merits weighed against the relief obtained by the settlement favors settlement.
11. Class Counsel has advocated for the Settlement. The Court defers to
Class Counsel’s informed and reasoned judgment and analysis of the relative risks
and benefits of protracted litigation. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of approving
the settlement.
12. The absence of any objections, and only one request for exclusion out
of 18,952 Class Members, is evidence of the Settlement’s adequacy. Thus, the
absence of any objections to the Settlement by absent Class Members supports final
approval.
13. The Court finds that the Settlement comports with the FCRA’s stated
goal of protecting consumer privacy and ensuring consumers are notified when
their personal, sensitive information is being released to third parties and used for
Case 2:23-cv-12827-RJW-APP ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 4 of 6

5
employment purposes. Additionally, because class actions are complex and
unpredictable, judicial-resource-saving class settlements are encouraged and in the
public interest. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of final approval.
14. The Court finds the Class Notice met the requirements set forth in Rule
23(e), Fed. R. Civ. P., the due process rights of absent class members were
protected, and the notice constituted the best practicable notice under the
circumstances. The Court also finds that all requirements of the Class Action
Fairness Act (“CAFA”) have been satisfied.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds the Settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate.
Accordingly:
(1) The Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is
GRANTED, and the Parties are directed to perform their duties under the Joint
Stipulation of Class Settlement (ECF No. 41-2), and the Clerk is instructed to enter
the Consent Order (ECF No. 41-2, PageID.330-31).
(2) The terms of the Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement are given full force
and effect.
(3) Plaintiff and the Settlement Classes hereby release all of the “Released
Claims” as defined by Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement with prejudice and are
Case 2:23-cv-12827-RJW-APP ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 5 of 6

6
barred and enjoined from pursuing any of the Released Claims in any forum or
venue.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 27, 2025 s/Robert J. White
Robert J. White
United States District Judge
Case 2:23-cv-12827-RJW-APP ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 6 of 6