Slaght et al v. Rex Performance Products, LLC f/k/a Michigan Foam and Fabrication et al
ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' 28 Unopposed Motion for Final Settlement Approval. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CHRISTOPHER SLAGHT, JEFFREY
MEGIE, JR and STEVEN SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all similarly
Case No. 16-cv-10159
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
REX PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, LLC,
f/k/a MICHIGAN FOAM AND
FABRICATION,a Michigan Limited
Liability Company, MAXWELL
MORGAN, LLC, a Nebraska Limited
Liability Company, DON TATE, an
individual, REX HANSEN, an individual,
and JOHN BALLINGER, an individual,
jointly and severally,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
On January 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a collective/class action lawsuit (the
“Litigation”) against the Defendants Rex Performance Products, LLC, f/k/a
Michigan Foam and Fabrication, Maxwell Morgan, LLC, Don Tate, Rex Hansen,
and John Ballinger (collectively “Defendants”) alleging they violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq. and for breach of contract for
failure to pay compensation for all time worked.
After filing a Motion for Conditional FLSA Certification, Plaintiffs and
Defendants agreed to engage in extensive settlement discussions and discovery to
determine whether a consensual resolution for the litigation could be reached.
In late June/early July 2017, the parties reached a class-wide settlement of
$125,000, which the Court preliminarily approved on September 15, 2017. (Doc. 26,
“Preliminary Approval Order”). The terms of the agreement are memorialized in
the parties’ Settlement Agreement. (Doc. 25-1). The parties had also filed and fully
briefed Plaintiff’s Motion for 216(b) Conditional Certification (Dkt. 14). The Parties
dismissed the pending motion once they were involved in settlement negotiations.
The Preliminary Approval Order: (1) approved of the parties’ FLSA
settlement; (2) certified a Michigan Rule 23 Class for settlement purposes; (3)
appointed Kevin J. Stoops of Sommers Schwartz, P.C. and Brian Delekta of Delekta
& Delekta P.C. as Class Counsel and Christopher Slaght, Jeffery Megie, Jr., and
Steven Smith as the Class Representative; (4) approved of the parties’ proposed
settlement notices; (5) approved of the parties’ proposed class action settlement
procedure; and (6) scheduled a fairness hearing after the close of the settlement
notice period. (Doc. 26).
Following the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, the court-approved
Settlement Administrator sent the settlement notice to 199 Settlement Class
Members on September 27, 2017. The notice informed the Class Members of the
total amount of the Settlement, how to request exclusion from the Settlement, and
how to object to the Settlement. It further stated Class Counsel’s intention to seek
incentive awards for Mr. Slaght, Mr. Megie, Jr., and Mr. Smith, attorneys’ fees and
costs, including the specific amounts requested. Two (2) individuals requested to be
excluded from the settlement and zero (0) individuals objected to the settlement.1 A
total of 196 individuals will participate in the settlement.
On November 6, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Final Settlement
Approval and Approval of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Class Representative
Awards. Defendants did not oppose the motion. The Court held a final fairness
hearing on November 20, 2017
Having considered the Motion for Final Approval, the supporting memoranda,
and the complete record in this matter, and for good cause shown:
The Court hereby GRANTS the Motion for Final Approval and finally
approves the settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement under Rule 23 and
the FLSA. The Court, for purposes of this Order, adopts all defined terms set forth
The Court’s September 15, 2017 Preliminary Approval Order stated: “Any
member of the Settlement Class or other person who does not timely file and serve
a written objection complying with the terms of this paragraph shall be deemed to
have waived, and shall be foreclosed from raising, any objection to the Settlement
(in this proceeding, on any appeal or in any other proceedings), and any untimely
objection shall be barred absent an Order from this Court” (Doc. 26 at Pg ID 311).
in the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable,
adequate, and not a product of collusion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e); 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 74994 (S.D. Ohio May 30, 2012) (citation omitted). The Court finds that this
action satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 for settlement purposes and further finds
that the Class has at all times been adequately represented by the Class
Representative and Class Counsel. The notice approved by the Court was provided
by first class mail to the last-known address of each of the individuals identified as
Class Members. In addition, follow-up efforts were made to send the notice to those
individuals whose original notices were returned as undeliverable. The notice
adequately described all of the relevant and necessary parts of the proposed
Settlement, and Class Counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Court finds that the notice given to the Class fully complied with Rule 23, was
the best notice practicable, satisfied all constitutional due process concerns, and
provides the Court with jurisdiction over the Class Members. The Court concludes
that the reaction from the Class can only be described as positive.
The Court also concludes that the Settlement, as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement executed by the parties, is fair, reasonable, and adequate
under state and federal laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §
201, et. seq. The Court finds that the uncertainty and delay of further litigation
strongly supports the reasonableness and adequacy of the $125,000 settlement
amount established pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement is HEREBY APPROVED in its entirety.
The Settlement Fund shall be dispersed in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement as detailed in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Settlement
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Court approves the
requested incentive award of $10,000 to be split equally among the Named Plaintiffs,
Christopher Slaght, Jeffery Megie, Jr., and Steven Smith.
Class Counsel’s requested fees and hourly rates are reasonable and their
request for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $41,666.67 and litigation expenses and
costs an amount not to exceed $10,000.72 (with any unused portion of this cost
amount to be split pro-rata between the Class Members) is hereby granted.
As provided in the Settlement Agreement, all Settlement Class
Members who did not opt out of the Settlement have released all claims as stated in
the Settlement Agreement.
As provided in the Settlement Agreement, Named Plaintiffs, as well as
all Settlement Class Members who do not opt out release their claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party
to bear his, her, or its own costs, except as set forth herein, and with this Court
retaining exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement.
The Court hereby enters Judgment approving the terms of the
Settlement. This Order shall constitute a Final Judgment for purposes of Fed. R. Civ.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 20, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on November 20, 2017, by electronic means and/or
s/Holly A. Monda
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?