Alvarez v. Schnipper Restaurants LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:16-cv-05779
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Alvarez v. Schnipper Restaurants, Judge Ramos preliminarily approved the revised settlement, certified the settlement class, and approved notice procedures.
The parties, potential class and collective members, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, Rust Consulting, and the defendants responsible for providing address information were affected by the order.
What happened
In Alvarez v. Schnipper Restaurants LLC, the parties asked the court to approve a revised settlement, preliminarily certify a settlement class, appoint class counsel, and approve notice procedures. The court had previously declined to approve an earlier agreement because of problems with its release, confidentiality clause, tax explanation, and description of possible recovery.
The revised agreement addressed those concerns. The court found that it complied with the requirements described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The court also found that the proposed notice fairly explained the case, settlement, fees, participation procedures, objections, and opt-out rights, and that the distribution plan was reasonably designed to reach affected class and collective members.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the motion. He preliminarily approved the revised agreement, preliminarily certified the settlement class, appointed Lee Litigation Group, PLLC as lead counsel and Rust Consulting as claims administrator, and approved the notice. The order also set deadlines for distributing notices and submitting claims, opt-out requests, or objections, and scheduled a final-approval hearing for May 13, 2020.
The detailed version
- Alvarez v. Schnipper Restaurants LLC · No. 1:16-cv-05779
- Edgardo Ramos
- Dec. 16, 2019
Background
On December 17, 2018, the parties applied for preliminary approval of a class settlement. On November 1, 2019, the court declined to approve the earlier agreement without prejudice because it contained an overbroad release and an improper confidentiality clause and did not adequately explain the proposed tax allocation or the possible range of plaintiffs’ recovery.
The parties then submitted a revised agreement on November 21, 2019. The court stated that the revised agreement removed the overbroad release, modified the confidentiality and tax-treatment provisions, and adequately explained the possible range of recovery.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the revised agreement complied with the requirements discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). The court also preliminarily certified the settlement class for purposes of the settlement and appointed Lee Litigation Group, PLLC as lead counsel. The opinion refers to certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), which governs collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The court found that the proposed notice was the best notice practical under the circumstances. It stated that the notice fairly, plainly, accurately, and reasonably informed potential class members about the litigation, the settlement class, class counsel, the settlement’s essential terms, counsel’s anticipated fee application, participation, final approval, objections, and opting out. The court also found that the proposed distribution plan was reasonably calculated to reach the class and collective members who would be bound by the settlement and satisfied the notice and due-process requirements.
Order
The court granted the motion and ordered the following:
- The revised agreement was preliminarily approved. - The settlement class was preliminarily certified. - Lee Litigation Group, PLLC was appointed lead counsel for the settlement class. - Rust Consulting was appointed claims administrator. - The proposed notice was approved. - Within 15 days after entry of the order, the defendants were required to provide Rust Consulting with an electronic list of the last known addresses for potential class and collective members. - Within 30 days after entry of the order, Rust Consulting was required to mail notice to the last known address of each potential class and collective member and take reasonable steps to obtain corrected addresses for returned notices. - Class and collective members were given 60 days from the mailing date to submit claim forms, opt-out requests, or objections. - A hearing under Rule 23(e) was scheduled for May 13, 2020, at 11:30 a.m. for final consideration of the settlement.
The opinion addresses preliminary approval and related settlement procedures; it does not state that the settlement received final approval.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.