Naclerio v. DocGo Inc. — Entry #116: REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 110 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses., 108 MOTION for Settlement for Final Approval and Approval of Plan of…

Case 1:23-cv-09476-KPF   Document 116      Filed 03/17/26   Page 1 of 8


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


                                          x
GENESEE COUNTY EMPLOYEES’                 :   Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-09476-KPF
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on :
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,  :   CLASS ACTION
                                          :
                              Plaintiff,  :   LEAD PLAINTIFF’S REPLY
                                          :   MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER
       vs.                                :   SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR: (I) FINAL
                                          :   APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
DOCGO INC. and ANTHONY CAPONE,            :   SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN
                                          :   OF ALLOCATION; AND (II) AN AWARD
                              Defendants.     OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES
                                          :
                                          x


4899-9413-9288.v1


         Case 1:23-cv-09476-KPF          Document 116         Filed 03/17/26      Page 2 of 8


         Lead Plaintiff Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System and Lead Counsel

respectfully submit this reply memorandum of law in further support of: (i) Lead Plaintiff’s Motion

for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Approval of Plan of Allocation; and (ii) Lead

Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. ECF 108-115.1

I.       PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

         The March 3, 2026 deadline for objections and requests for exclusion has passed and Lead

Plaintiff is pleased to inform the Court that the Class’ reaction to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation,

and Lead Counsel’s fee and expense application has been entirely positive. As detailed in the

opening declaration of Ross D. Murray (ECF 114) and the accompanying Supplemental Declaration

of Ross D. Murray Regarding: (A) Continued Notice Dissemination; (B) Update on Call Center

Services and Website; and (C) Requests for Exclusion Received to Date (“Suppl. Murray Decl.”),

the Claims Administrator disseminated over 13,280 Postcard Notices to potential Class Members

and nominees. See ECF 114, ¶11; Suppl. Murray Decl., ¶¶3-4. Notice was also published in The

Wall Street Journal, transmitted over Business Wire, and posted on the settlement website

established by the Claims Administrator, www.DocGoSecuritiesSettlement.com. ECF 114, ¶¶12,

14; see also Suppl. Murray Decl., ¶6. There have been no objections to the Settlement or Plan of

Allocation. Moreover, no Class Member has sought exclusion from the Class. Suppl. Murray Decl.,

¶¶8-9.


1
        Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms have the meanings ascribed to them in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated November 12, 2025 (ECF 101-1) (the “Stipulation”) or in the
Declaration of Christopher M. Wood in Support of: (I) Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and Approval of Plan of Allocation; and (II) Lead Counsel’s Motion for an
Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (ECF 112). Unless otherwise noted, citations are omitted
and emphasis is added.

                                                 -1-
4899-9413-9288.v1


         Case 1:23-cv-09476-KPF          Document 116        Filed 03/17/26      Page 3 of 8


         The Class’ favorable response supports a finding that the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and

Lead Counsel’s fee and expense application, are fair, reasonable, and adequate.

II.      ARGUMENT

         A.         The Reaction of the Class Strongly Supports Approval of the
                    Settlement and Plan of Allocation

         As detailed in Lead Plaintiff’s opening brief in support of approval of the Settlement, Lead

Counsel achieved an outstanding $12.5 million settlement, recovering over 20% of reasonably

recoverable damages. ECF 109 at 13. The Class agrees. Not a single Class Member has objected to

the Settlement or Plan of Allocation. Likewise, no Class Member has sought to be excluded from

the Class. See Suppl. Murray Decl., ¶¶8-9. This favorable reaction “is perhaps the most significant

factor” in determining the fairness and adequacy of the proposed Settlement, and strongly supports

approval here. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 119 (2d Cir. 2005),

superseded by rule as stated in Moses v. New York Times Co., 79 F.4th 235 (2d Cir. 2023); see also

Contant v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2020 WL 13689631, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2020) (approving

settlement with no objections finding “Class Members’ reaction to the Settlement [is] entitled to

great weight”); In re Signet Jewelers Ltd. Sec. Litig., 2020 WL 4196468, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 21,

2020) (alteration in original) (“‘[T]he favorable reaction of the overwhelming majority of class

members to the Settlement is perhaps the most significant factor in [the] Grinnell inquiry’ into the

fairness and adequacy of the Settlement.”); In re Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Sec. Litig., 2014 WL

7323417, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2014) (“The reaction of the . . . Class to the Settlement is a

significant factor in assessing its fairness and adequacy.”); Maley v. Del Glob. Techs. Corp., 186 F.

Supp. 2d 358, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“[T]he reaction of the class to the settlement is perhaps the most

significant factor to be weighed in considering its adequacy.”).


                                                 -2-
4899-9413-9288.v1


         Case 1:23-cv-09476-KPF          Document 116         Filed 03/17/26       Page 4 of 8


         The Class’ positive reaction to the Settlement therefore weighs in favor of final approval of

the Settlement. See ECF 109 at §III.B.6; see also Signet, 2020 WL 4196468, at *6 (“The absence of

any objections and the small number of requests for exclusion support a finding that the Settlement

is fair, reasonable, and adequate.”); Guevoura Fund Ltd. v. Sillerman, 2019 WL 6889901, at *7

(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2019) (“To date, not a single Class Member has objected or sought exclusion.

The absence of negative feedback from Class Members evidences an overall favorable response of

the Class Members to the Settlement.          Thus, this factor strongly supports approval of the

Settlement.”); In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Sec. & Deriv. Litig., 343 F. Supp. 3d 394, 410 (S.D.N.Y.

2018) (“The overwhelmingly positive reaction – or absence of a negative reaction – weighs strongly

in favor of confirming the Proposed Settlement.”), aff’d, 822 F. App’x 40 (2d Cir. 2020); Yuzary v.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 5492998, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2013) (“No Class Member

objected to the settlement[.] This favorable response demonstrates that the class approves of the

settlement and supports final approval.”); In re FLAG Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 2010 WL

4537550, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2010) (“The absence of objections to the Settlement supports the

inference that it is fair, reasonable and adequate.”).

         Moreover, the absence of objections from institutional investors provides further support for

final approval of the proposed Settlement. See, e.g., In re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litig., 296 F.R.D.

147, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“[N]ot one of the objections or requests for exclusion was submitted by

an institutional investor. Therefore . . . ‘the class’s reaction weighs heavily in favor of approval.’”).

         The Class’ favorable response to the Plan of Allocation likewise supports approval of the

Plan of Allocation. See, e.g., In re Romeo Power Inc. Sec. Litig., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237134, at

*3-*4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2024) (approving plan of allocation where no objections were submitted);

Signet, 2020 WL 4196468, at *6 (“The reaction of the Class also supports approval of the Plan of

                                                  -3-
4899-9413-9288.v1


         Case 1:23-cv-09476-KPF          Document 116        Filed 03/17/26     Page 5 of 8


Allocation.”); In re Veeco Instruments Inc. Sec. Litig., 2007 WL 4115809, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7,

2007) (“[N]ot one class member has objected to the Plan of Allocation which was fully explained in

the Notice of Settlement sent to all Class Members. This favorable reaction of the Class supports

approval of the Plan of Allocation.”); In re XL Fleet Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 1:21-cv-02002-JLR, ECF

200 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2024) (approving plan of allocation and noting that there were no objections

to the proposed plan) (attached hereto as Ex. A); In re Wells Fargo & Co. Sec. Litig., No. 1:20-cv-

04494-JLR-SN, ECF 205 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2023) (approving plan of allocation and noting that

there were no objections to the proposed plan) (attached hereto as Ex. B).

         B.         The Reaction of the Class Strongly Supports Approval of Lead
                    Counsel’s Fee and Expense Application

         As set forth more fully in Lead Counsel’s opening brief in support of an award of attorneys’

fees and expenses, Lead Counsel’s fee request of 33% of the Settlement Amount is supported by

Lead Plaintiff, consistent with awards in complex class action litigation, and fair and reasonable

under the relevant factors, including the fact that it does not result in a windfall to Lead Counsel.

ECF 111; see also In re Grab Holdings Ltd. Sec. Litig., 2025 WL 1413515, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 15,

2025) (awarding 33-1/3% of $80 million settlement, representing recovery of between 8.9% and

13.4% of estimated recoverable damages). The recovery here far exceeds, on a percentage basis, the

median settlement for cases of this size. See Laarni Bulan and Eric Tam, Securities Class Action

Settlements – 2025 Review & Analysis (Cornerstone Research 2026) at 7, fig. 8. Since the Claims

Administrator disseminated the Court-approved notice, no objections have been raised to any aspect

of Lead Counsel’s application for awards of attorneys’ fees and expenses.

         “The absence of any objections to [Lead Counsel’s] requested attorneys’ fees and Litigation

Expenses supports a finding that the request is fair and reasonable.” Signet, 2020 WL 4196468, at

*21; see also Guevoura Fund, 2019 WL 6889901, at *22 (“To date, no object[ion] to the fee request
                                                 -4-
4899-9413-9288.v1


         Case 1:23-cv-09476-KPF          Document 116        Filed 03/17/26       Page 6 of 8


has been received. The lack of objections, in this day and age, is not only remarkable, but militates

in favor of approval of the Fees as requested.”); In re Veeco Instruments Inc. Sec. Litig., 2007 WL

4115808, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2007) (“No member of the Class has objected to either the

Settlement or to Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees. This response suggests

that the fee request is fair and reasonable.”).

III.     CONCLUSION

         The $12.5 million Settlement – the byproduct of extensive litigation and arm’s-length

negotiations by experienced counsel overseen by a skilled mediator – represents an outstanding

recovery for the Class. For these reasons and those set forth in their opening papers, ECF 108-115,

Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel respectfully request that the Court: (i) approve the proposed

Settlement and Plan of Allocation as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Class;

and (ii) award attorneys’ fees to Lead Counsel in the amount of 33% of the Settlement Amount, plus

litigation expenses in the amount of $183,676.18, plus the interest earned on both amounts.

Proposed orders are submitted herewith.

DATED: March 17, 2026                     Respectfully submitted,

                                          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
                                           & DOWD LLP
                                          CHRISTOPHER M. WOOD (admitted pro hac vice)


                                                          s/ Christopher M. Wood
                                                         CHRISTOPHER M. WOOD

                                          200 31st Avenue North
                                          Nashville, TN 37203
                                          Telephone: 615/244-2203
                                          615/252-3798 (fax)
                                          [email protected]


                                                  -5-
4899-9413-9288.v1


         Case 1:23-cv-09476-KPF   Document 116      Filed 03/17/26   Page 7 of 8


                                  ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
                                    & DOWD LLP
                                  SAMUEL H. RUDMAN
                                  DAVID A. ROSENFELD
                                  58 South Service Road, Suite 200
                                  Melville, NY 11747
                                  Telephone: 631/367-7100
                                  631/367-1173 (fax)
                                  [email protected]
                                  [email protected]

                                  ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
                                    & DOWD LLP
                                  ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART (admitted pro hac vice)
                                  ERIC I. NIEHAUS (admitted pro hac vice)
                                  JOSEPH J. TULL (admitted pro hac vice)
                                  655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
                                  San Diego, CA 92101
                                  Telephone: 619/231-1058
                                  619/231-7423 (fax)
                                  [email protected]
                                  [email protected]
                                  [email protected]

                                  Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff

                                  VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD
                                    & TIMMONY, P.C.
                                  THOMAS C. MICHAUD
                                  79 Alfred Street
                                  Detroit, MI 48201
                                  Telephone: 313/578-1200
                                  313/578-1201 (fax)
                                  [email protected]

                                  Additional Counsel


                                        -6-
4899-9413-9288.v1


         Case 1:23-cv-09476-KPF      Document 116        Filed 03/17/26   Page 8 of 8


                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1(c)

         I, Christopher M. Wood, hereby declare that this document contains 1,516 words, and

complies with the word-count limitation provided by Local Rule 7.1(c).

DATED: March 17, 2026                 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
                                       & DOWD LLP
                                      CHRISTOPHER M. WOOD (admitted pro hac vice)


                                                     s/ Christopher M. Wood
                                                    CHRISTOPHER M. WOOD


                                             -7-
4899-9413-9288.v1