Soler v. Fresh Direct, LLC

Background

Vidal Soler and Corey Stewart brought this class action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Fresh Direct, LLC and Fresh Direct Holdings, Inc. The parties negotiated a settlement to resolve claims covered by the settlement agreement and avoid the uncertainty and burden of continued litigation. The opinion does not state the total gross settlement amount.

Settlement Class and Certification

The court defined the Settlement Class as all people who applied for employment with Fresh Direct in New York State during the relevant period, received conditional employment offers, disclosed criminal conviction histories or had background checks reveal criminal conviction histories, and had their conditional offers withdrawn for any reason between January 1, 2015, and July 29, 2021.

For settlement purposes only, the court finally certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3). The court found that the class was sufficiently numerous, that common legal or factual questions existed, that the named plaintiffs’ claims were typical, and that the named plaintiffs could adequately protect the class’s interests. It also found that common questions predominated, that the class was ascertainable, and that settlement was superior to other methods of resolving the claims.

The court confirmed Soler and Stewart as class representatives and Outten & Golden LLP as class counsel, each solely for purposes of seeking and implementing the settlement. It found that the notice provided was the best practicable notice under the circumstances and satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and constitutional due process. Settlement class members who did not timely and properly opt out will release the released persons from the released claims when the settlement becomes effective.

Court’s Analysis and Rulings

The court reviewed the settlement agreement, the case record, the parties’ submissions, and argument at the fairness hearing. Judge Analisa Torres found the settlement procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate, and found that it was not the product of collusion. In reaching that conclusion, the court considered the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ case, the settlement’s monetary and programmatic relief, the risks and costs of continued litigation, the lack of opposition among class members, the parties’ discovery, counsel’s views, and the parties’ arms-length negotiations with the assistance of a mediator.

The court approved service awards of $10,000 each for the named plaintiffs and $5,000 for the declarant. It awarded class counsel $300,000 in fees and $24,790.58 in costs, to be paid from the gross settlement amount.

The order directs Fresh Direct to deposit the gross settlement amount into a qualified settlement fund no later than 10 days after the settlement’s effective date. Fourteen days after that date, the settlement administrator must mail checks to participating class members, pay the approved service awards, and transfer the approved fees and costs to class counsel. Participating class members have 120 days to negotiate their checks, and reminders must be sent to those who have not done so. Any uncashed funds will be redistributed to participating class members if economically feasible; otherwise, they will be awarded to The Fortune Society.

The court retained jurisdiction for one year after the order to interpret and implement the settlement. Upon fulfillment of all settlement terms, the entire litigation will be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees except as provided in the settlement agreement and the order. Plaintiffs and non-excluded settlement class members are permanently enjoined from asserting, pursuing, or seeking to reopen claims released by the settlement.