Carr et al v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc. et al, No. 1:2017cv01875 - Document 83 (N.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/23/18. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, denies plaintiffs' motion. The Court's 7/27/18 Order reduced defendants' overall obligation under the Settlement Agreement by $210,000.00, for a Total Settlement Amount of $2,790,000.00. (Related Doc. 80 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Carr et al v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc. et al Doc. 83 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ----------------------------------------------------------: : : Plaintiffs, : : vs. : : : BOB EVANS FARMS, INC., et al., : Defendants. : : -----------------------------------------------------------CHRISTOPHER CARR, et al., CASE NO. 1:17-cv-1875 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 80] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: The parties recently settled this case. The case involved alleged Fair Labor Standards Act violations. On July 27, 2018, th— Court ’rant—– Pla“nt“‘‘s unoppos—– motions for the approval of the settlement and the appointment of the settlement administrator, and granted in part and denied in part th— mot“ons ‘or s—rv“c— awar–s an– attorn—y s ‘——s an– costs.1 The Court modified the proposed settlement payments in two ways: it reduced the service award payments by $10,000, and reduced the attorn—y s fees by $200,000.2 The Court thereafter entered judgment and terminated the action.3 On August 7, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for clarification o‘ th— Court s Or–—r under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).4 Plaintiffs argue that the Settlement Agreement approved a Total Settlement Amount5 of $3 million.6 They argue that the $210,000 reduction in service awards and 1 Doc. 78. See id. at 5 (reducing the requested service awards for the two named Plaintiffs from $10,000 each to $5,000 each); id. at 6 8 (r—–uc“n’ Pla“nt“‘‘s attorn—y s ‘——s ‘rom $1.2 m“ll“on to $1 million). 3 Doc. 79. The Court retains jurisdiction over the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the signed settlement agreement, as approved by the Court. See Doc. 80-1 ¶ 62. 4 Doc. 80. Defendants oppose. Doc. 81. Plaintiffs reply. Doc. 82. 5 Capitalized terms have the meaning given to them in the Settlement Agreement. 6 See Doc. 80 at 2. 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:17-cv-1875 Gwin, J. attorn—y s ‘——s should not decrease the $3 million and that the $210,000 reduction should be added to the Plaintiffs S—ttl—m—nt Fun– for distribution to Plaintiffs on a pro rata basis.7 Defendants oppos— Pla“nt“‘‘s mot“on to clar“‘y.8 They interpret the Plaintiffs Settlement Fund amount as exactly $1,743,122.38 and no more and the Total Settlement Amount as only capping D—‘—n–ants total monetary obligation at $3 million.9 Their implicit conclusion is that the $210,000 reduction caused a net decrease in the Total Settlement Amount, for a new total of $2,790,000. They also argue that Rule 60(a) is not the proper vehicle for the motion for clarification,10 and that there is no basis for reconsidering the Order.11 D—‘—n–ants interpretation is the correct one. The Court s Or–—r mo–“‘“—– only th— s—rv“c— awar–s an– attorn—y s ‘——s paym—nts.12 It approved the settlement and its terms in all other respects.13 The Settlement Agreement terms therefore dictate the effect of the $210,000 service awards an– attorn—y s ‘——s reduction. And these terms establish that Defendants total mon—tary obl“’at“on under the Settlement Agreement is reduced by $210,000. The Settlement Agreement does not cause the $210,000 attorney fee and service award reduction to “ncr—as— th— Pla“nt“‘‘s S—ttl—m—nt Fun– amount. The Settlement Agreement establishes $1,743,122.38 as th— —xact amount o‘ Pla“nt“‘‘s S—ttl—m—nt Fun– no more, no less.14 7 Id. at 1, 3. Doc. 81. 9 See id. at 3 5. 10 Id. at 1 2. The Court agrees that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) is not the proper avenue ‘or Pla“nt“‘‘s motion to clarify. Rule 60(a) authorizes courts to correct clerical errors and oversights, rather than substantive errors of judgment. See Olle v. Henry & Wright Corp., 910 F.2d 357, 363 (6th Cir. 1990) (citing Jones v. Anderson Tully Co., 722 F.2d 211, 212 13 & n. 3 (5th Cir.1984)). Plaintiffs ask the Court to interpret the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which is a matter of substantive judgment. The motion therefore would have more appropriately been brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) as a motion for reconsideration, and the Court treats it as such. See Stancik v. Deutsche Bank, No. 1:17-CV-01809, 2018 WL 1070873, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2018). 11 Doc. 81 at 2. 12 See Doc. 78 at 3 10 (mo–“‘y“n’ th— two nam—– Pla“nt“‘‘s s—rv“c— awar– paym—nts an– attorn—y s ‘——s, but approving everything else); Doc. 79. 8 13 14 See id. See Doc. 80-1 ¶ 15 ( Pla“nt“‘‘s S—ttl—m—nt Fun– m—ans th— amount D—‘—n–ants coll—ct“v—ly hav— ma–— available to the Plaintiffs in exchange for this Agreement and the obligations set forth herein, which amount is One Million, Seven Hundred Forty-Three Thousand, One Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars and Thirty-Eight Cents -2- Case No. 1:17-cv-1875 Gwin, J. Nor can the $210,000 reduction be used for an increase in the Settlement Payment amount. The Settlement Payments are the amounts distributed to Plaintiffs from the Plaintiffs S—ttl—m—nt Fund,15 and [t]h— a’’r—’at— amount o‘ [these payments] shall not under any circumstances exceed the [$1,743,122.38] Pla“nt“‘‘s S—ttl—m—nt Fun–. 16 Reallocating the $210,000 to Plaintiffs on a pro rata basis would cause the aggregate amount of the Settlement Payments to exceed $1,743,122.38, the amount of Plaintiffs S—ttlement Fund. The $210,000 reduction cannot be reallocated to any other payment category, and Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise. The Settlement Agreement does, however, permit a reduction of certain payments, such as s—rv“c— awar–s an– attorn—y s ‘——s, to reduce Defendants ov—rall mon—tary obligation. Th— Total S—ttl—m—nt Amount “s not –—‘“n—– as $3 m“ll“on, as Pla“nt“‘‘s ar’u—; rath—r, “t “s capped at $3 million.17 In other words, the Total Settlement Amount can be less than or equal to $3 million. It just cannot be greater. For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Pla“nt“‘‘s mot“on. Th— Court s July 27 Order reduced D—‘—n–ants ov—rall obl“’at“on un–—r th— S—ttl—m—nt A’r——m—nt by $210,000, for a Total Settlement Amount of $2,790,000. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Dated: August 23, 2018 James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ($1,743,122.38). ); id. ¶ 43 ( Each Pla“nt“‘‘ s S—ttlement Payment will be calculated by multiplying the fraction x/y by the Pla“nt“‘‘s S—ttl—m—nt Fun– ($1,743,122.38) . . . . ). See also id. ¶ 37(b) ( [T]h— Opt-In Plaintiffs and the Named Plaintiffs w“ll r—c—“v— S—ttl—m—nt Paym—nts ‘rom th— Pla“nt“‘‘s S—ttlement Fund calculated as set forth in Paragraph 43 of the A’r——m—nt. ). 15 See id. ¶ 23 ( S—ttl—m—nt Paym—nt m—ans th— mon—tary amounts that ar— to b— –“str“but—– to th— Nam—– Plaintiffs and Opt-In Plaintiffs according to the terms of this Agreement from th— Pla“nt“‘‘s S—ttl—m—nt Fun–, —xclu–“n’ th— Enhanc—m—nt Paym—nts b—“n’ ma–— to th— Nam—– Pla“nt“‘‘s. ); id. ¶ 43. 16 See id. ¶ 43; id. ¶ 38. I‘ th— total o‘ all S—ttl—m—nt Paym—nts —xc——–s th— Pla“nt“‘‘s S—ttl—m—nt Fun–, —ach Settlement Payment shall b— r—–uc—– on a pro rata bas“s. Id. ¶ 43. 17 Id. ¶¶ 24, 36. The Settlement Agreement defines the Total Settlement Amount as up to $3 m“ll“on, id., and states that [“]n no —v—nt shall th— Total S—ttl—m—nt Amount —xc——– [$3 m“ll“on], id. ¶ 24. -3-
]]>
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.
