Monplaisir v. Integrated Tech Group, LLC

Background

Paul Monplaisir sued Integrated Tech Group, LLC, and ITG Communications, LLC, alleging wage-and-hour violations involving technicians who performed home installation services for cable and telecommunications equipment. The complaint alleged that technicians worked significant portions of their days without pay, including during meal periods and while driving, and that defendants pressured employees to change or underreport their time and systematically undercalculated their pay.

An earlier order conditionally certified a nationwide collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Later, many collective members were compelled to arbitrate, and the court rejected a proposed California class because only sixteen putative class members had not been compelled to arbitrate. At the time of this order, the conditionally certified FLSA collective had 133 members. All had affirmatively opted into the collective, and none had signed arbitration agreements.

Final collective certification

For settlement purposes, the court found that the FLSA collective members were similarly situated. The technicians performed similar work under similar conditions, and declarations, interviews, depositions, documents, and GPS data supported allegations of unpaid driving time and missed, interrupted, or untimely breaks. Defendants did not oppose collective treatment for purposes of settlement. The court therefore granted final collective certification for settlement purposes.

FLSA settlement

The proposed settlement released the collective’s FLSA claims for a gross amount of $1,350,000. After attorney’s fees and other overhead, $970,000 was allocated to the FLSA collective, which the court found represented about 96 percent of the amount Monplaisir asserted was defendants’ total exposure on those claims. Payments would be distributed according to each member’s number of weekly pay periods worked.

The court found that the settlement resolved a genuine dispute. Defendants contested the allegations on factual and legal grounds, offered evidence that some technicians were paid for pre-shift work, driving time, and meal breaks, and produced proof of meal-period premium payments. The court also noted an unsettled legal question concerning whether travel from a technician’s home to the first job site was compensable. These circumstances created litigation risk for Monplaisir.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable after considering the recovery, the parties’ investigation and discovery, litigation risks, the release, counsel’s views and experience, and the absence of fraud or collusion concerns. The release was limited to FLSA claims brought or that could have been brought based on the complaint’s facts. The court required the notice to explain that cashing the settlement check would likely waive related state-law wage and overtime claims, and required removal of the agreement’s publicity provision.

The court granted final approval of the FLSA settlement and plan of allocation to the extent stated. It ordered that the settlement be completed according to its terms, authorized administration and distribution of the settlement proceeds, and retained jurisdiction over settlement administration and enforcement. The FLSA claims were dismissed, but the order did not add a prejudice designation.

California labor-law claims

The settlement also released claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for 238 California aggrieved employees for $40,000. Three-fourths, or $30,000, was allocated to the state labor agency, leaving $10,000 for the employees, or approximately $42 per employee. The court found the amount minimal but acceptable and granted approval of the proposed PAGA settlement.

Service award, fees, and costs

The court granted Monplaisir’s requested $500 service award after considering his declaration that he spent more than fifty hours supporting the case, including participating in a deposition and meetings and reviewing settlement documents.

Counsel requested $227,000 in attorney’s fees. The court granted that request, finding that the amount represented 16.8 percent of the total settlement fund and was reasonable compared with counsel’s claimed $3.9 million lodestar. The court awarded the fees in two installments: half on the settlement’s effective date and the remainder after defendants certified that the funds had been distributed and the file could be closed.

Counsel requested $133,482.97 in litigation costs. Although the court found the costs reasonable, it concluded that counsel had not separated costs supporting the certified FLSA collective from costs related to litigation that did not benefit the collective, including work concerning arbitration agreements and the rejected class-certification motion. The court therefore awarded $100,000 in costs. It also allowed further settlement-administration costs under $12,500 to be paid from the settlement fund without another application.

Disposition

The court granted final certification and approval of the collective settlement to the extent stated, granted approval of the PAGA settlement, granted the service-award request, awarded $227,000 in attorney’s fees, awarded $100,000 in costs, granted approval of the allocation and administration plans, and approved Florida Legal Services as the beneficiary of unclaimed funds. Judge William Alsup signed the order on May 12, 2022.