Stotesbery v. Muy Pizza-Tejas, LLC

Background

John Stotesbery, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, moved for final approval of a class and collective action settlement with MUY Pizza-Tejas, LLC, MUY Pizza Minnesota, LLC, and James Bodenstedt. The motion was unopposed. The court reviewed the motion and a supplemental brief and held a final fairness hearing on October 8, 2024.

Settlement approval

The court found that class members received the best notice practicable under the circumstances. Individual notice was sent by U.S. mail to all members who could be identified through reasonable effort, and the notice explained the nature of the action, the class definition, and class members’ options in plain language.

Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. It determined that the class representative and class counsel adequately represented the class, the settlement was negotiated at arm’s length, and the proposal treated class members equitably. The court also considered the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, the proposed method for distributing relief, and the attorneys’ fee terms. The motion for final approval was granted, and the settlement was approved.

Fees, costs, and service award

The court approved the attorneys’ fees, costs, and service award provided for in the settlement. It approved attorneys’ fees of $1,500,000, equal to one-third of the settlement fund. The court noted that there were no objections to the fee request after the notice process was completed. It also found reasonable the requested litigation-cost reimbursement of $44,787.32, previously approved administrative expenses of $24,000, and a $10,000 service award to John Stotesbery.

The court noted that counsel’s lodestar attributable to the MUY defendants was $476,777.53 and that the requested fee produced a 3.15-times lodestar multiplier. It found that multiplier reasonable under Eighth Circuit precedent and stated that the relevant fee factors either supported approval or were neutral.

Order

The parties were ordered to carry out the settlement according to its terms. The court retained jurisdiction over disputes that might arise while the settlement was carried out. Judge Katherine Menendez signed the order on February 26, 2025.