Filho v. OTG Management, LLC

Background

Dafinis Filho, Raquel Ernest, and Chantel Lynch sued OTG Management, LLC, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated workers. The parties negotiated a settlement to resolve the claims being released and avoid the uncertainty and burden of continued litigation. The plaintiffs filed unopposed motions for final approval of the class and collective action settlement and for approval of service awards, class counsel’s fees, and costs.

The court reviewed the settlement agreement, the case record, the parties’ submissions, and arguments at a fairness hearing. It found that the settlement was procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate, and was not the product of collusion. In reaching that conclusion, the court considered the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs’ case, the monetary recovery, the distribution method, the treatment of class members, the likely burden and expense of further litigation, the lack of opposition, counsel’s views, the mediation-assisted negotiations, and the discovery conducted.

Settlement Class and Certification

For settlement purposes only, the court certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3). The court found that the class was sufficiently numerous, had common legal or factual questions, had claims typical of the class, was adequately represented, was ascertainable, and could be resolved through settlement more fairly and efficiently than other available methods.

The settlement class includes specified current and former tipped workers employed by a defendant entity at LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy Airport, and/or Newark Liberty Airport during periods beginning September 6, 2013, or September 6, 2016, and ending February 1, 2023. The covered groups include workers who filed consent forms to join the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action, certain New York and New Jersey class members, and certain workers who either did not join the federal collective or signed arbitration agreements and did not retain plaintiffs’ counsel to pursue arbitration. The named plaintiffs were confirmed as class representatives, and Outten & Golden LLP was confirmed as class counsel, solely for purposes of seeking settlement.

Notice, Releases, and Approval

The court found that the notice provided was the best practicable notice under the circumstances and satisfied Rule 23, constitutional due process, and other applicable legal requirements. The order incorporates the settlement’s release provisions. Depending on their status, work location, and participation, class members who did not timely opt out or who submitted claim forms release specified federal, New York, and/or New Jersey claims. Certain class members also release federal claims by cashing or otherwise negotiating their settlement checks, subject to the exceptions in the agreement.

The court separately found that the parties’ settlement of the Fair Labor Standards Act claims was a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of a genuine dispute and approved it.

Payments and Implementation

The court approved service awards of $12,000 for each of the three named plaintiffs. It awarded class counsel $500,000 in attorneys’ fees and $34,822.70 in costs, payable from the gross settlement amount. It also approved a $30,598 fee for Analytics LLC to continue serving as settlement administrator.

The order authorizes implementation of the settlement. No later than seven days after the settlement’s effective date, OTG must deposit $1,585,823.99 into the qualified settlement fund. Within 14 days after that deposit, the settlement administrator must mail settlement checks, pay the approved fees and costs, pay the service awards, and pay its approved fee. Thirty days after the first mailing, the administrator must send reminders to participating class members who have not negotiated their checks.

Disposition

The court granted final approval of the settlement and approved the requested service awards, attorneys’ fees, costs, and administration fee. The order states that, once all settlement terms are fulfilled, the entire litigation will be dismissed with prejudice and without additional costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees except as provided in the settlement agreement and the order. The court retained jurisdiction over interpreting and implementing the settlement. The order also states that it will have no force or effect if the settlement does not become final and does not constitute an admission or concession of fault, wrongdoing, breach, or liability by any party.