Rivas v. The Dinex Group, LLC

Background

The plaintiffs sought approval of a $60,000 settlement reached with The Dinex Group, LLC and the other defendants on March 4, 2021. The proposed settlement covered a Rule 23 settlement class and a collective settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court had previously granted preliminary approval, conditionally certified the settlement class, appointed Lee Litigation Group, PLLC as class counsel, appointed Rust Consulting, Inc. as settlement administrator, and authorized notice to class members.

The plaintiffs later moved for final certification of the settlement class, final approval of the class settlement, approval of the FLSA settlement, approval of service awards, and approval of attorneys’ fees and expense reimbursement. The defendants did not oppose the motions. The court held a fairness hearing on July 7, 2021, and received no objections to the settlement, service awards, or fees and expenses. The required notices under the Class Action Fairness Act were also sent, and no government official submitted a comment or objection during the relevant period.

Court’s Analysis

The court confirmed the settlement class and the appointment of the named class representatives and class counsel. It found that the notice was fair and adequate and that the notice process satisfied due-process requirements. The court approved the FLSA settlement as fair and reasonable.

Under Rule 23, the court granted final approval of the settlement. It found that the settlement was procedurally fair because it resulted from vigorous, arm’s-length negotiations after experienced counsel investigated the claims. It also found the settlement substantively fair, considering factors including the litigation’s likely complexity, expense, and duration; the stage of the proceedings and discovery; the risks of proving liability and damages; the risks of maintaining the class through trial; the absence of objections; the defendants’ ability to withstand a greater judgment; and the settlement’s relationship to the possible recovery and litigation risks.

The court found that the allocation plan was rationally related to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the claims and approved the payment procedures for class members who did not timely opt out.

Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards

The court granted the motion for attorneys’ fees and awarded class counsel $12,069.67, approximately one-third of the settlement fund. The court considered the hours worked, results achieved, contingent nature of the representation, complexity of the issues, a lodestar cross-check, and counsel’s experience and expertise. The court noted that some hourly rates attributed to timekeepers were excessive but concluded that the lodestar cross-check supported the award even at lower rates.

The court awarded class counsel $10,975.50 in litigation expenses. This was less than the $13,029.04 requested because the court found some investigation expenses, including expenses for a third investigator, investigators’ meals, and certain travel time, unreasonable or unnecessary.

The court approved service awards of $200 for each of the eleven approved class representatives, totaling $2,200. It also approved Rust Consulting’s $8,196 fee as settlement administrator. The attorneys’ fees, expenses, and service awards were to be paid from the settlement fund, while Rust Consulting’s fee was to be paid according to the settlement agreement from the settlement fund.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action in its entirety and with prejudice. It stated that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants would be considered prevailing parties. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.