Warfa v. Nationwide Express, LLC

Background

Abdullahi Warfa and Omar Omar brought wage claims for themselves and other delivery drivers against Nationwide Express, LLC, and Amazon Logistics, Inc. They alleged that the defendants failed to pay overtime required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. The notice materials state that the drivers claimed overtime for hours over 40 per week under federal law and over 48 per week under Minnesota law. The defendants denied the allegations, and Amazon specifically denied that it was or had been the drivers’ employer or joint employer.

The parties filed an unopposed motion for conditional and class certification and preliminary approval of a settlement. The proposed settlement made $205,000 available to 198 plaintiffs, according to the settlement notices. The notices stated that damages were calculated using Nationwide’s payroll and time records, delivery-time data from Amazon’s devices, and information from the plaintiffs.

Court’s Rulings

The court granted the motion. For settlement purposes only, it certified the Minnesota overtime claim as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class consists of all delivery drivers who performed services for the defendants through Nationwide Express at any time from May 19, 2018, through March 13, 2019.

The court found that the 198-person class met the required standards, including sufficient size, common legal questions, typical claims by Warfa and Omar, and adequate representation. It also found that common questions predominated over individual issues and that a class action was preferable to 198 separate lawsuits. The court appointed Michele R. Fisher and Neil D. Pederson of Nichols Kaster, PLLP, and their firm, as class counsel.

The court also certified the lawsuit as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for settlement purposes only, covering the same group of delivery drivers. It found a reasonable basis for the claim that the drivers were affected by a common policy or plan and concluded that a collective action was efficient, effective, and fair.

Settlement Approval and Notice

After reviewing the proposed settlement, including its distribution method, notice and payment procedures, expected recovery, attorney fees, costs, service payments, and a payment concerning Omar’s alleged retaliation claim, the court preliminarily found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court stated that it would address those issues further at the final approval hearing.

The court approved the proposed form and method of notice and directed the parties to mail the notices by October 24, 2019. Under the order, class and collective members could participate by cashing their settlement checks; they did not need to submit a separate exclusion statement. Members who wanted to object had to provide the required written notice to class counsel by December 16, 2019. The court scheduled the final approval hearing for January 13, 2020.

If the settlement did not become effective, the settlement-only class and collective certifications would be vacated and the parties would return to their prior positions. If final judgment were entered, members who opted into the settlement would release the claims covered by the settlement. Only members who opted in would receive settlement benefits.