Kervin et al v. Supreme Service & Specialty Company, Inc., No. 2:2015cv01172 - Document 135 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that the 134 motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jarae Parker without prejudice is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jarae Parkers claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint 133 Motion to Approve Settlement is GRANTED and the parties settlement agreement is APPROVED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kervin et al v. Supreme Service & Specialty Company, Inc. Doc. 135 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A BRAN D ON KERVIN , ET AL., Pla in tiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15-1172 SU PREME SERVICE & SPECIALTY COMPAN Y, IN C., D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E” ( 4 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is the parties’ J oint Motion to Approve Settlement. 1 For the reasons below, the m otion is GRAN TED . BACKGROU N D Plaintiff Brandon Kervin filed this collective action, individually an d on behalf of all others sim ilarly situated, on February 27, 20 15. Plaintiffs allege that Defen dant Suprem e Service & Specialty Com pany, Inc. (“Defendant”) violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 2 because Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs overtim e wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 3 The Court approved the parties’ consent m otion to certify the collective class on August 25, 20 15, 4 and 169 individuals joined the lawsuit by the Court’s deadline. 5 Eighteen plaintiffs were later voluntarily dism issed by agreem ent. 6 Two individuals who were inadvertently left off the notice list were allowed to participate in the case an d included in settlem ent negotiations. 7 1 R. Doc. 133. 29 U.S.C. § 20 1, et seq. 3 R. Doc. 1 ¶ 1.2. 4 R. Doc. 74. 5 See R. Doc. 133-1 at 1. 6 R. Docs. 10 5, 118, 119. 7 R. Doc. 130 , 131. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com On J une 6, 20 16, the parties reached a settlem ent agreem ent in a settlem ent conference before the m agistrate judge. 8 The parties’ settlem ent resolves the claim s of all but one of the plaintiffs. 9 The parties agreed to voluntarily dism iss Plaintiff J arae Parker’s claim s without prejudice and resolve his claim s in another action pending in another section of this Court. 10 On J une 13, 20 16, the parties jointly m oved to approve the proposed settlem ent agreem ent and dism iss this m atter with prejudice. 11 STAN D ARD OF LAW The Court “m ust approve any settlem ent reached by the parties which resolves the claim s in this action brought under [29 U.S.C. § 216(b)].”12 “In order to approve a settlem ent proposed by an em ployer and em ployees of a suit brought under the FLSA and enter a stipulated judgm ent, a court m ust determ ine that the settlem ent is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.”13 The Court m ust scrutinize the proposed settlem ent agreem en t to verify that parties are not circum venting the “clear FLSA requirem ents” by entering into a settlem ent agreem ent. 14 When deciding whether to approve a proposed settlem ent, the Court m ust assess whether the proposed settlem ent is both (1) the product of a bona fide dispute over the FLSA’s provisions and (2) fair and reasonable. 15 8 R. Doc. 133 See R. Doc. 133-1 at 4. 10 See Gom ez, et al v. Suprem e Service & Specialty Co., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-0 5264. Accordingly, the parties’ joint m otion to dism iss Plaintiff J arae Parker without prejudice is GRAN TED . R. Doc. 134. The claim s of Plaintiff J arae Parker are D ISMISSED W ITH OU T PREJ U D ICE. 11 R. Doc. 133. 12 Collins v. Sanderson Farm s, Inc., 568 F. Supp. 2d 714, 717 (E.D. La. 20 0 8 ). 13 Id. at 719. 14 See id. 15 Dom ingue v. Sun Electric & Instrum entation, Inc., No. 0 9-682, 20 10 WL 168 8793, at *1 (E.D. La Apr. 26, 20 10 ). 9 2 AN ALYSIS I. Is the Settlem ent the Product of a Bona Fide Dispute? When deciding whether a bona fide dispute exists, the Court considers whether there is a “genuine dispute as to the Defen dant’s liability under the FLSA,”16 as “[w]ithout a bona fide dispute, n o settlem ent could be fair and reasonable.”17 This is particularly true in an “FLSA [action because its provisions] are m andatory, and not subject to negotiation and bargaining between em ployers and em ployees.”18 The Court finds that a bona fide dispute exists between Plaintiffs and Defen dant with regard to whether Defendant violated the FLSA. The parties contested both the hours worked and com pensation due. Plaintiffs prosecuted the case through written discovery and a corporate deposition of Suprem e Service’s form er chief operations officer. 19 Suprem e Service, m eanwhile, subm itted its own written discovery to Plaintiffs, took four depositions (and had about five m ore plann ed at the tim e of settlem ent), and reviewed thousands of pages of records to support its affirm ative defenses and its position concern ing potential dam ages. 20 Suprem e Service also had filed a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. 21 Additionally, a five-day jury trial is set to begin Septem ber 19, 20 16. 22 The Court finds this sufficient to conclude that in this case there was “both aggressive prosecution and strenuous defense” to prove a bona fide dispute. 23 16 Allen v. Entergy Operations, Inc., No. 11-1571, 20 16 WL 614687, at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 11, 20 16). Collins, 568 F. Supp. 2d at 719. 18 Allen, 20 16 WL 614687, at *1. 19 R. Doc. 133 at 12. 20 R. Doc. 133 at 12-13. 21 R. Doc. 128. 22 R. Doc. 23 See Atkins v. W orley Catastrophe Response, LLC, No. 12-240 1, 20 14 WL 1456382, at *2 (E.D. La. Apr. 14, 20 14). 17 3 II. Is the Settlem ent Fair and Reasonable? In determ in ing whether a negotiation is fair and reasonable under the FLSA, courts are guided by Reed v. General Motors Corporation, in which the Fifth Circuit enum erated factors to determ ine whether a settlem ent is fair in a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 24 Courts, however, “adopt or vary these factors in their application in light of the special role of the Court in settlem ent of FLSA claim s.”25 There are six factors: (1) the existence of fraud or collusion behind the settlem ent; (2) the com plexity, expen se, and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the am ount of discovery com pleted; (4) the probability of the plaintiffs’ success on the m erits; (5) the range of possible recovery; and (6) the opinions of class counsel, class representatives, and absent class m em bers. 26 A. Application of the Factors 1. The existence of fraud or collusion behind the settlem ent With respect to the “fraud or collusion” factor, there are several presum ptions that guide a court’s determ ination of whether a settlem ent is fair and reasonable. “[T]here is a strong presum ption in favor of finding a settlem ent fair,”27 and, absent evidence to the contrary, there is a presum ption that no fraud or collusion occurred between counsel. 28 In light of these presum ptions, however, “it is clear that the court should not give rubberstam p approval.”29 The Court has found no indication of fraud or collusion. The parties 24 Allen, 20 16 WL 614687, at *2; Reed v. Gen. Motors Corp., 70 3 F.2d 170 , 172 (5th Cir. 1983). See also Collins, 568 F. Supp. 2d at 722 (noting “Rule 23 does not control FLSA collective actions, [but] m any courts have adopted m any of Rule 23’s procedures” given the court’s discretion under §216(b)). 25 Collins, 568 F. Supp. 2d at 722. 26 Id. (citing Cam p v . Progressive Corp., No. 0 1-2680 , 20 0 4 WL 21490 79 (E.D. La. Sept. 23, 20 0 4)). 27 Dom ingue, 20 10 WL 168 8 793, at *1 (internal quotations om itted). 28 Akins, 20 14 WL 1456382, at *2. 29 Id. (quotin g 4 N EWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS §11.41 (4th ed.)). 4 have engaged in discovery, m otions practice, and negotiations to resolve this m atter. This factor indicates the settlem ent is fair an d reasonable. 2. The com plexity , expense, and likely duration of the litigation The instant case has been pen ding m ore than a year and, while the discovery period has alm ost concluded and a five-day jury trial is set to begin Septem ber 19, 20 16, there are still num erous unresolved issues, including num ber of hours worked and com pensation due. The Court finds that the unresolved issues and the com plexity of the litigation indicate the settlem ent is fair and reasonable. 3. The stage of the proceedings and the am ount of discovery com pleted A court will consider how m uch form al discovery has been com pleted for two reasons: (1) “extensive discovery [by the parties indicates] a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases and hence that the settlem ent’s value is based upon such adequate inform ation,” and (2) “full discovery dem onstrates that the parties have litigated the case in an adversarial m anner an d . . . therefore . . . settlem ent is not collusive but arm s-length.”30 The lack of m uch form al discovery is not necessarily fatal, however, and a court m ay look to inform al avenues of gathering inform ation or m ay approve a settlem ent with no form al discovery conducted. 31 In this case, the parties have engaged in both pre-certification discovery as well as extensive “m erits” discovery for the last eleven m onths. Suprem e Service’s corporate representative was deposed, and four plaintiffs were deposed. The parties have exchanged thousands of pages of docum ents. The Court therefore finds the parties have litigated the 30 N EWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 13:50 (5th ed.) See id; In re Chicken Antitrust Litig. Am . Poultry , 669 F.2d 228, 241 (5th Cir. 1982) (explain in g that form al discovery is not “a necessary ticket to the bargain ing table” where the parties and the court are adequately inform ed to determ in e the fairness of the settlem ent) (citing In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 643 F.2d 195, 211 (5th Cir. 1981)). 31 5 case in an adversarial m anner and are sufficiently fam iliar with the facts of this case to reach a fair settlem ent. This factor weighs in favor of finding the settlem ent fair and reasonable. 4. The probability of the plaintiffs’ success on the m erits It is uncertain at this point whether Plaintiffs would be successful at trial. Defendant provided a series of affirm ative defenses, including the Motor Carrier Act (“MCA”) exem ption to the FLSA’s overtim e pay requirem ents and prescription. 32 Defendant contended the claim s of 28 Plaintiffs should be wholly barred and the claim s of 59 Plaintiffs should be partially barred because Plaintiffs lack eviden ce of the “willfulness” required to apply the FLSA’s three-year statute of lim itations. 33 Defendants asserted that the MCA exem ption to FLSA’s overtim e pay requirem ents applies to 84 Plaintiffs who recorded driving across state lines vehicles in excess of 10 ,0 0 0 pounds. 34 Plaintiffs contested the MCA exem ption citing the “covered em ployee” exception which allows em ployees whose work includes driving vehicles weighing less than 10 ,0 0 0 pounds to be eligible for overtim e. 35 The Court finds that given the num erous unresolved disputes between the parties and the stage at which this litigation rem ains, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs would be m eritorious. This factor indicates the settlem ent is fair and reasonable. 5. The range of possible recovery The settlem ent am ounts for the m ajority of the putative class are based on a negotiated num ber of overtim e hours that the Plaintiffs allegedly worked but for which 32 See R. Doc. 21 at 9– 11. R. Doc. 133-1 at 2. 34 Id. 35 Id. 33 6 they were not paid overtim e. 36 Com prom ise am ounts of overtim e are provided for those Plaintiffs whose claim s m ay be com pletely barred. 37 The Court finds that all of the agreedupon am ounts are within a range of possible recovery for the Plaintiffs, indicating the settlem ent is fair and reasonable. 38 6. The opinions of class counsel, class representatives, and absent class m em bers The only parties to the settlem ent are the Plaintiffs and Defen dant Suprem e Service Com pany, Inc. There are no “absent class m em bers.”39 All parties are represented by counsel. 40 The parties jointly seek judicial approval of a settlem ent agreem ent that addresses a bona fide dispute and was negotiated in good faith. The parties negotiated a settlem ent agreem ent before the m agistrate judge. The Court finds the final factor indicates the settlem ent is fair and reasonable. B. Conclusion All six of the factors indicate the proposed settlem ent is fair and reason able. Accordingly, the Court finds the proposed settlem ent agreem ent is fair and reasonable. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the settlem ent agreem ent is both prem ised on a bona fide dispute and fair and reasonable. Accordingly; 36 Id. at 3. Id. at 4. 38 See Collins, 568 F.Supp. 2d at 726-27. 39 See LaChapelle v. Ow en s-Illinois, Inc., 513 F.2d 286, 28 8 (5 th Cir. 1975) (“Under [29 U.S.C. § 216(b)], . . . no person can becom e a party plaintiff an d no person will be bound by or m ay benefit from judgm ent unless he has affirm atively ‘opted into’ the class; that is, given his written, filed consent.”); Brow n v. United Furniture Industries, Inc., No. 13-246, 20 15 WL 1457265, at *5 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 30 , 20 15) (“[I]n an FLSA collective action, there are no absent class m em bers; only those who have opted in are considered parties to the suit and boun d by the results of the action.”). 40 “‘The Court is entitled to rely on the judgm ent of experienced counsel in its evaluation of the m erits of a class action settlem ent.’” Lackey v. SDT W aste & Debris Servs., LLC, No. 11-10 87, 20 14 WL 480 9535, at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 26, 20 14) (quoting Collins, 568 F. Supp. 2d at 727). 37 7 IT IS ORD ERED that the m otion to dism iss Plaintiff J arae Parker without prejudice is GRAN TED . 41 Plaintiff J arae Parker’s claim s are D ISMISSED W ITH OU T PREJU D ICE. IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that the J oint Motion to Approve Settlem ent is GRAN TED and the parties’ settlem ent agreem ent is APPROVED . IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that this action is D ISMISSED W ITH PREJU D ICE in accordance with the term s of the settlem ent agreem ent. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 17th d ay o f Ju n e , 2 0 16 . _________ ______________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 41 R. Doc. 134. 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
