Byers et al v. Care Transport Inc

Filing 53

OPINION and ORDER Granting 49 Joint MOTION for Approval of Settlement. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
YASHAE BYERS, GLORIA ETZEL, and
JILL JANAVIKAS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:13-cv-15174
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

v.
CARE TRANSPORT, INC.,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT [49]
This is a collective-action suit brought by drivers employed by Defendant Care
Transport. Plaintiffs allege that Care Transport failed to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Ten plaintiffs opted into
the action and another was added by the stipulation of the parties when the Court certified
and defined the class. See Order, ECF No. 51. Before the Court is the parties' joint motion
for approval of the settlement. In it, the parties explain why one of the opt-in plaintiffs, David
Storck, should be excluded from the class. See Mot. 1, ECF No. 49. Ten opt-in plaintiffs
remain, in addition to the three named plaintiffs.
When, as here, "employees bring a private action for back wages under the FLSA,
and present to the district court a proposed settlement, the district court may enter a
stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness." Lynn's Food Stores, Inc.
v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Snook v. Valley Ob-Gyn
Clinic, P.C., No. 14-CV-12302, 2015 WL 144400, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 2015) (applying
Lynn's Food Stores). "Before approving a settlement, a district court must conclude that it

is 'fair, reasonable, and adequate.'" Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace, & Agr. Implement
Workers of Am. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615, 631 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e)(1)). Several factors guide the Court's inquiry:
(1) the risk of fraud or collusion;
(2) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation;
(3) the amount of discovery engaged in by the parties;
(4) the likelihood of success on the merits;
(5) the opinions of class counsel and class representatives;
(6) the reaction of absent class members; and
(7) the public interest.
Id.
The Court determines that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The parties have engaged in extensive discovery and participated in settlement
conferences with the Court. They have identified risks to Plaintiffs in proceeding to trial and
there has been no showing or suggestion of fraud or collusion. With the Court's leave, the
parties filed their plan for dispersing the proceeds of the settlement. The Court has
reviewed the dispersion and finds that it is reasonable in amount and fairly divided among
class members.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of
Settlement [49] is GRANTED, and the settlement as described in the sealed Exhibit to
Motion for Approval of Settlement [52] is APPROVED.
SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: February 23, 2017

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on February 23, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/David P. Parker
Case Manager

3