Franck v. New York Health Care Inc.

Background

Louis Franck, Li Zhen Feng, Yeraldin Reyes, Charisma Barber, Cassondra Floyd, and Elizabeth Guerrero sued New York Health Care Inc., Murry Englard, and Glen Persaud individually and on behalf of other similarly situated people. The parties entered into a class and collective action settlement agreement. The court had previously granted preliminary approval, provisionally certified a settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, conditionally certified a collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act, appointed class representatives and class counsel, approved a notice plan, and scheduled a fairness hearing.

Class and Collective Certification

For settlement purposes only, the court found that the Rule 23 requirements were satisfied, including numerosity, common questions, typical claims, adequate representation, predominance of common questions, and superiority of the class-action procedure. The court finally certified this Rule 23 Class: all people employed by New York Health Care Inc. as home care workers at any time from June 4, 2015, through November 8, 2023.

The court also finally certified, for settlement purposes only, a Fair Labor Standards Act collective under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The collective consists of all people employed by New York Health Care Inc. as home care workers at any time from June 4, 2018, through November 8, 2023.

Notice and Settlement Approval

The court found that notice was provided according to the settlement agreement and the preliminary approval order. It found that the notice, opt-out, and objection procedures satisfied Rule 23 and due-process requirements and were the best practicable under the circumstances. No class member objected, and one class member requested exclusion from the settlement.

After a September 12, 2024 fairness hearing, the court found that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations. It concluded that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate for the Rule 23 Class and a reasonable compromise of contested issues for the Fair Labor Standards Act collective. The court approved the settlement agreement, its releases, and its other terms. Once the settlement’s effective date occurs, the released claims will be fully, finally, and permanently released. The parties were directed to perform under the agreement.

Fees, Judgment, and Disposition

The court granted the named plaintiffs’ requested service awards, to be paid from the settlement fund under the agreement. It also granted class counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, likewise to be paid from the settlement fund under the agreement. The opinion does not state the dollar amounts of those awards.

The court ordered that the action be dismissed on the merits and with prejudice and that the action be closed. It retained exclusive jurisdiction as necessary to resolve disputes under the settlement agreement or carry out its terms. The defendants did not admit liability, and the order states that they expressly denied liability. If the settlement’s effective date does not occur, the order becomes null and void, and the parties are restored to their positions before executing the settlement agreement. Judge Gregory H. Woods stated that the document is a final, appealable order and constitutes a judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 58.