Tweedie v. Waste Pro of Fla., Inc.

Tweedie v. Waste Pro of Fla., Inc.

Opinion

ORDER

Plaintiff Candiss Tweedie ("Tweedie" or "Plaintiff") brought this action against Defendants Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. ("Waste Pro Florida") and Waste Pro USA, Inc. ("Waste Pro USA") (collectively, "Waste Pro" or "Defendants"), alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., on behalf of herself and a putative class (Doc. 1). Following preliminary approval of the Class Settlement and notice to the Settlement Class Members, Tweedie now requests final approval of the class action settlement (Doc. 66) and an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and additional compensation (Doc. 61). Defendants do not oppose any of Tweedie's requests. To determine whether the Class Settlement constitutes a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution for the Settlement Class Members, the undersigned conducted a Fairness Hearing, at which counsel for both parties appeared. After consideration and based [*2]  upon the representations made during the Fairness Hearing and in the motions, Tweedie's Amended Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. 66)¹ is granted, and Tweedie's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Additional Compensation to Plaintiff (Doc. 61) is granted to the extent set forth herein.²

I. Background

Tweedie formerly worked for Waste Pro Florida, which provides solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal services to residential and commercial customers in the State of Florida and consists of one of many affiliated entities providing similar services under the "Waste Pro" umbrella in the United States. Waste Pro USA in turn performs administrative services for all the related Waste Pro entities, including procuring background checks and consumer reports on prospective employees, employees, and former employees at all Waste Pro entities. According to Tweedie, Waste Pro USA routinely obtained and used information in consumer reports to conduct background checks on prospective employees, employees, and former employees, including her and the putative class members.

In doing so, Tweedie alleged that Defendants willfully violated the FCRA, [*3]  specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) and (ii). Those provisions provide:

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.