Clark v. CooperFriedman Electric Supply Co.
John R. Clark, individually and on behalf of all putative class members v. CooperFriedman Electric Supply Co., Inc. d/b/a Cooper Power Systems and Cooper Electric Supply Co.
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-07806
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Clark v. CooperFriedman, Judge Cronan approved the class settlement, awarded fees and payments, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
John R. Clark, the settlement-class members, class counsel, the claims administrator, and the defendant companies were affected. The settlement class is to receive payments from the settlement fund; approved fees, costs, Clark’s service payment, and claims-administrator expenses will also be paid from that fund. The action is dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In John R. Clark v. CooperFriedman Electric Supply Co., Inc., Clark and the settlement class asked the court to approve their proposed settlement. The defendants did not oppose the request.
The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the settlement class’s best interest. It also approved $94,957.50 in attorneys’ fees, $5,032.50 in costs, a $3,000 service payment to Clark, and up to $10,250 in fees and expenses for the claims administrator.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered distribution of settlement payments, entered judgment, and dismissed the action with prejudice, directing the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order stated that the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing or liability.
The detailed version
- Clark v. CooperFriedman Electric Supply Co. · No. 1:23-cv-07806
- John Cronan
- Oct. 14, 2025
Background
John R. Clark and the class certified for settlement purposes moved for final approval of a settlement with CooperFriedman Electric Supply Co., Inc. d/b/a Cooper Power Systems and Cooper Electric Supply Co. The motion also requested attorneys’ fees and costs for class counsel, a service payment for Clark, and reimbursement of the claims administrator’s expenses. The defendants did not oppose any of these requests. The court had previously granted preliminary approval of the settlement and certified the settlement class for settlement purposes. It held fairness hearings on October 6 and October 14, 2025.
The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or allegations. The court stated that CooperFriedman Electric Supply Co., Inc. represents that it now operates under the name of Cooper Electric Supply Co., and referred to the defendants collectively as “Defendant.”
Court’s Findings
The court found that it had jurisdiction over the case and the settling parties, including the settlement-class members. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), it found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the settlement class’s best interest. It also found that the relevant settlement factors had been satisfied.
The court found that the court-approved notice was mailed as required, satisfied the applicable class-action notice and due-process requirements, and was the best notice practicable under the circumstances. It also found that Defendant adequately complied with the notice provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act.
Ruling and Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan granted final approval of the settlement on behalf of Clark and the settlement class. The settlement agreement was incorporated into the order, and the claims administrator was directed to distribute the settlement fund according to that agreement. Settlement payments were required to begin no later than twenty calendar days after the order.
The court granted class counsel’s application for $94,957.50 in attorneys’ fees and $5,032.50 in costs, payable from the settlement fund. It awarded Clark a $3,000 service payment, also payable from the fund, and approved up to $10,250 in claims-administrator fees and expenses.
The order constituted a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and a final order and judgment under Rule 54(b). The court retained continuing exclusive jurisdiction over matters concerning the settlement. It stated that the order and settlement materials were not admissions or evidence of a statutory violation, liability, wrongdoing, or the truth of the claims. The action was dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.