Medina v. NYC Harlem Foods Inc

Background

Marisol Medina sued NYC Harlem Foods Inc and the other named defendants individually and on behalf of people similarly situated. The parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class-action settlement, along with their joint settlement agreement and release. The agreement was intended to resolve all claims brought by Medina and the proposed class members against the defendants.

Preliminary Settlement Approval

The court found, on a preliminary basis, that the settlement fell within the range of reasonableness and that notice to the proposed class members was appropriate. It also found that the agreement resulted from extensive, arms-length negotiations conducted by counsel experienced in wage-and-hour class actions. The court therefore granted the parties’ Preliminary Approval Motion.

This was preliminary approval, not final approval. The order provided that if the settlement’s defined effective date did not occur, the settlement agreement would be null and void, subject to the agreement’s terms.

Provisional Class Certification

For settlement purposes only, the court provisionally certified a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class consists of all current and former employees who worked for the defendants in New York from February 15, 2015, through the date of the order and were non-exempt employees.

The court appointed Medina to represent the class and found, for settlement purposes only, that the proposed class met the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). The order stated that this provisional certification had no other purpose or effect, including if the settlement was not ultimately approved.

Class Counsel and Notice

The court appointed Bouklas Gaylord LLP as class counsel for settlement purposes only. It found that the firm had performed substantial work identifying, investigating, litigating, and settling the claims and had substantial experience with employment and wage-and-hour class actions.

The court approved the form and content of the proposed notice and found that the notice procedures were the best practicable under the circumstances and satisfied due-process requirements. The notice was required to explain the settlement generally, possible deductions for attorneys’ fees and other payments, how to participate, how to object or opt out, and the procedures for final approval.

The parties were ordered to retain a settlement claims administrator within 10 days of the order. Written objections by class members who had not opted out were due within 60 days after the notice was mailed. The schedule also provided an August 30, 2024 deadline for submitting a claim form or opting out.

Settlement Process and Ruling

Pending final approval and entry of a final approval order, the order barred and enjoined class members from further litigating the case, pursuing covered claims in another action or proceeding, or seeking certification of a class or collective action involving those claims.

The court ordered the parties to carry out the settlement according to the agreement. Judge Vernon S. Broderick scheduled a Rule 23(e)(2) fairness hearing for October 4, 2024, to consider timely objections, decide whether the settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable, determine attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses and service awards, and enter judgment. The parties were required to file their motion for judgment and final approval, and class counsel were required to file their fee and expense motion, by September 20, 2024.

The opinion does not state the settlement amount or the specific amounts sought for attorneys’ fees, expenses, or service awards.