Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 13, 2025

Pompilio v. Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc.

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:24-cv-08220
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Fee PetitionClass Action
In one sentence

In Pompilio v. Boar’s Head, Judge Halpern approved attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and $1,000 incentive awards under a class settlement.

Who this affects

The ruling affected class counsel, the five named settlement-class representatives, and settlement-class members who submitted timely and valid claim forms. The awards were to be paid and distributed under the settlement agreement.

What happened

Pompilio v. Boar’s Head Provisions Co. Inc. involved a motion by Frank Pompilio, Rita Torres, Samantha Chuskas, Sheryl Gatoff, and Robby Harper for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and incentive awards connected to a class settlement. The settlement created a $3.1 million cash fund for eligible class members.

The court granted the motion. It awarded class counsel $1,033,333.33 in attorneys’ fees and $38,060.33 in litigation costs. It also approved a $1,000 incentive award for each settlement-class representative. The court stated that no objections to the fee provisions or motion were made and that the awards were fair and reasonable.

Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered that the fees, costs, and incentive awards be paid and distributed according to the settlement agreement. The court’s order relied in part on findings made at the August 13, 2025 final-approval hearing, which are not included in the provided text.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Pompilio v. Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc. · No. 7:24-cv-08220
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Aug. 13, 2025

Background

Frank Pompilio, Rita Torres, Samantha Chuskas, Sheryl Gatoff, and Robby Harper, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a motion on August 1, 2025, seeking attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and service awards in connection with a settlement. The court referred to the named plaintiffs collectively as the plaintiffs and to their lawyers as class counsel.

The settlement agreement created a $3.1 million cash settlement fund for the settlement class. The court stated that notice of the fee and expense request was provided to potential class members in a reasonable manner and complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h)(1) and due process. Class members were given an opportunity to object under Rule 23(h)(2), but the court stated that no objections to the fee provisions or motion were made.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and awarded class counsel $1,033,333.33 in attorneys’ fees. The court stated that, as of June 2025, class counsel had devoted approximately 1,051 hours to the litigation and had a lodestar—the calculated value of time spent at applicable hourly rates—of $790,445.20. After considering the motion and the factors identified in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., the court found the requested fee fair, reasonable, and appropriate. The court stated that it had analyzed those factors at the August 13, 2025 final-approval hearing and incorporated those findings by reference.

The court also found that class counsel incurred $38,060.33 in litigation costs. It determined that the costs were reasonably incurred and necessary given the case’s complexity and scope, and ordered reimbursement. Class counsel was directed to allocate the awarded fees and expenses among counsel based on each lawyer’s contribution to prosecuting and settling the litigation.

The court approved a $1,000 incentive award for each settlement-class representative. It identified the representatives’ litigation risks, time and effort, and contributions to the benefits obtained for settlement-class members as reasons supporting those awards. The court ordered that the attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards be paid and distributed according to the settlement agreement. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order on August 13, 2025.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.