UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION"

Julianna French
8 years ago
Views:

1 Case: 4:13-cv AGF Doc. #: 40 Filed: 09/08/14 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 373 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER SPIROFF, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 4:13CV01479 AGF SAINT LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, Defendant. ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This action for unpaid overtime wages is before the Court on the parties joint motion (Doc. No. 39 for final approval of the Settlement Agreement reached in this case. For the reasons set forth below, the motion shall be granted. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Christopher Spiroff alleges in his complaint that for the two years prior to the filing of the complaint (July 31, 2011 through July 31, 2013, Defendant failed to pay him and all other similarly situated individuals who were employed by Defendant as park rangers, for overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. (Count I. 1 At present, there are a total of 18 individuals, including the named Plaintiff, Christopher Spiroff, who have opted in as Plaintiffs ( Opt-in Plaintiffs in the FLSA collective action. Six of the Opt-in Plaintiffs filed consent forms with the 1 Plaintiff also alleges state law claims for unpaid wages for straight-time and gap time wages on theories of breach of contract (Count II, quantum meruit (Count III, and unjust enrichment (Count IV.

situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 4:13CV01479 AGF SAINT LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, Defendant.

2 Case: 4:13-cv AGF Doc. #: 40 Filed: 09/08/14 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 374 Court before the parties reached a settlement in this case. These six Opt-in Plaintiffs are Keith Goldacker, Kimberly Graczyk, Elizabeth Korte, Edward Fergus, James McKeon, and Michael Wyland (collectively designated as Current Opt-In Plaintiffs in the parties Settlement Agreement. (See Doc. No at 1. On July 18, 2014, the Court granted the parties joint motion for certification of a collective class for settlement purposes; preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement reached in this case; and approval of notice to the class members. (Doc. No. 36. Following the Court s Order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, the approved notice was mailed to the putative plaintiffs, and 11 more Opt-in Plaintiffs filed timely consents to join the litigation for purposes of participating in the settlement. These 11 Opt-in Plaintiffs are Keith Kaiser, Mary Cranor, Gerald Wilson, Matthew Reim, Laura MacLeod, Eric Burnes, Thomas Niemira, Timothy Emmons, Cheryl Fechter, Bryan Faser, and Joseph Montgomery (collectively designated as FLSA Settlement Class in the parties Settlement Agreement. (See Docs. No & 38. The deadline to opt in as Plaintiffs to the FLSA Settlement Class expired on August 22, On September 4, 2014, the parties filed this joint motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement, which has been signed by Defendant and by named Plaintiff Christopher Spiroff, as class representative on behalf of all of the Opt-in Plaintiffs, sets forth the amount of money each of the Current Opt-In Plaintiffs is to receive, the amount of an incentive award to go to the named Plaintiff, the amount of money to be paid for attorney s fees and costs (to be paid separately from the settlement - 2 -

parties Settlement Agreement. (See Doc. No. 33-1 at 1.

3 Case: 4:13-cv AGF Doc. #: 40 Filed: 09/08/14 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 375 fund, the formula for awarding settlement funds to the FLSA Settlement Class, the release of claims against Defendant by the Current Opt-In Plaintiffs and the FLSA Settlement Class, and the schedule for distribution of settlement payments. The Settlement Agreement proposes to dismiss Count I of Plaintiff s complaint (the FLSA claim with prejudice as to all Opt-in Plaintiffs, to dismiss Counts II-IV with prejudice only as to the Current Opt-in Plaintiffs, and to dismiss Counts II-IV without prejudice as to the FLSA Settlement Class. The amount requested for attorney s fees is supported by a supplemental memorandum filed by Plaintiffs counsel (Doc. No. 35, which summarizes the tasks performed by counsel and sets out the total hours expended by counsel performing those tasks and the hourly rates charged. As set forth in the supplemental memorandum, class counsel agreed to a reduction in the amount of their fees in connection with the settlement. On September 4, 2014, the parties also filed a joint notice advising the Court of the number and percentage of FLSA Settlement Class members who opted in, the settlement payment to be made to each FLSA Settlement Class member pursuant to the formula set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and the total settlement payment to be made to the FLSA Settlement Class. (Doc. No. 38. The parties informed the Court that they were not aware of any issues with locating any prospective FLSA Settlement Class member, that the parties did not receive any notice back as undeliverable, and that the parties have no other reason to believe that any prospective FLSA Settlement Class member did not receive the notice. (Id. at

and the FLSA Settlement Class, and the schedule for distribution of settlement payments.

4 Case: 4:13-cv AGF Doc. #: 40 Filed: 09/08/14 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 376 DISCUSSION When employees bring a private action for back wages under the FLSA, and present to the district court a proposed settlement, the district court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness. Accordingly, as long as the Court is satisfied that a settlement reached in adversarial proceedings represents a fair and equitable compromise of a bona fide wage and hour dispute, the settlement may be approved, and stipulated judgment entered. Simmons v. Enter. Holdings, Inc., No. 4:10CV00625, 2012 WL , at *1 (E.D. Mo. July 13, 2012 (citing cases. To approve an FLSA settlement, the Court must find that (1 the litigation involves a bona fide dispute, (2 the proposed settlement is fair and equitable to all parties concerned and (3 the proposed settlement contains an award of reasonable attorney fees. Grove v. ZW Tech, Inc., No KHV, 2012 WL , at *3 (D. Kan. Oct. 15, To determine whether a settlement of an FLSA collective action is fair and equitable to all parties, courts apply the same fairness factors as apply to a proposed class action settlement under Rule 23, which include (1 whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated, (2 whether serious questions of law and fact exist which place the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt, (3 whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation and (4 the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Id. Here, upon review of the record, the Court finds that the litigation involves a bona fide dispute, and that the Settlement Agreement is fair and equitable. The Court further - 4 -

court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.

5 Case: 4:13-cv AGF Doc. #: 40 Filed: 09/08/14 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 377 finds that the amount for attorney s fees and costs is reasonable. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties joint motion for final approval of settlement is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 39. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this action is hereby DISMISSED as follows: a. Count I of Plaintiff s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as to Plaintiffs Christopher Spiroff, Keith Goldacker, Kimberly Graczyk, Elizabeth Korte, Edward Fergus, James McKeon, Michael Wyland, Keith Kaiser, Mary Cranor, Gerald Wilson, Matthew Reim, Laura MacLeod, Eric Burnes, Thomas Niemira, Timothy Emmons, Cheryl Fechter, Bryan Faser, and Joseph Montgomery only; b. Counts II-IV of Plaintiff s complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice as to Plaintiffs Christopher Spiroff, Keith Goldacker, Kimberly Graczyk, Elizabeth Korte, Edward Fergus, James McKeon, and Michael Wyland only; c. Other than the dismissals with prejudice stated in (a and (b above, the Counts/allegations set forth in Plaintiff s complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice. Dated this 8th day of September, AUDREY G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE - 5 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this action is hereby DISMISSED as follows: a.

Case: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageid>

Case: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION MARY DOWELL, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:07-CV-39