Rivas et al v. Riceland Crawfish, Inc. et al

Filing 52

ORDER: The Court has been advised that the parties have reached a settlement in this case which has been conditionally certified a collective action. Accordingly, a Motion for court approval of the settlement shall be filed within ninety (90) days. Upon filing, the Motion shall be set for hearing before the undersigned. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Michael Hill on 05/06/2014. (crt,Yocum, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALONDRA CEJUDO RIVAS, ET AL.

*CIVIL NO. 6:12-2610

VERSUS

*JUDGE HAIK

BEAUCOUP CRAWFISH OF EUNICE, INC., ET AL.

*MAGISTRATE JUDGE HILL

ORDER
The Court has been advised that the parties reached a settlement in this case which has
been conditionally certified a collective action under Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29
U.S.C. § 201, et seq. Accordingly, a Motion for court approval of the settlement shall be filed
within ninety (90) days.1 Upon filing, the Motion shall be set for hearing before the
undersigned.
Signed this 6th day of May, 2014, at Lafayette, Louisiana.

1

Because this case has been conditionally certified as a collective action under the FLSA, this Court must
approve the settlement before it may be finalized. See Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. Oneil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945); Camp v.
Progressive Corp., 2004 WL 2149079 (E.D. La. 2004); Liger v. New Orleans Hornets NBA Limited Partnership.
2009 WL 2856246 (E.D. La. 2009).
Before the Court may approve a settlement in a collective action brought under the FLSA, it must first
determine whether the settlement involves the resolution of a bona fide dispute over an FLSA provision and then
decide whether the settlement is fair and reasonable. Camp, 2004 WL 2149079, at *4 citing Lynn's Food Stores,
Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-55 (11th Cir. 1982), Jarrad v. Southern Shipbldg. Corp., 163 F.2d 960
(5th Cir. 1947) and Stalnaker v. Novar Corp., 293 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1263 (M.D. Ala. 2003).
In determining whether a settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, the Court should consider the
following six factors: (1) the existence of fraud or collusion behind the settlement; (2) the complexity, expense, and
likely duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the
probability of plaintiffs' success on the merits; (5) the range of possible recovery; and (6) the opinions of the class
counsel, class representatives, and absent class members. Camp, 2004 WL 2149079 at *5 citing Reed v. General
Motors Corp., 703 F.2d 170, 172 (5th Cir. 1983) citing Parker v. Anderson, 667 F.2d 1204, 1209 (5th Cir. 1982).
When considering these factors, the court should keep in mind the “strong presumption” in favor of finding a
settlement fair. Id. citing Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1331 and Henderson v. Eaton, No. 01-0138, 2002 WL 31415728, at *2
(E.D. La. 2002).
As part of the fairness determination, the Court must also assess the reasonableness of the proposed
attorney's fees and expenses sought by plaintiffs' counsel. Camp, 2004 WL 2149079 at *18-19 citing Strong, 137
F.3d at 850, Heidtman, 171 F.3d at 1043 and Longden, 979 F.2d at 1100-01; Liger, 2009 WL 2856246, at *5.