Berry v. Best Transportation, Inc. et al

Filing 165

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED This matter is before the Court on the parties Joint Motion for Settlement (Doc. 163 ), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/31/20. (JAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MARIO BERRY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
BEST TRANSPORTATION, INC., d/b/a
BEST TRANSPORTATION OF
ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:16-cv-00473-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Settlement. (Doc. 163.)
Background
On April 6, 2016, Plaintiff Mario Berry filed suit against Defendants on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, alleging that they had failed to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19. (Doc. 1.) The parties conducted
an initial phase of discovery on the issue of whether Berry and those similarly situated were
exempt from overtime protection under the so-called “Motor Carrier Act” (“MCA”) exemption
to the FLSA. (Doc. 75); 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1).
Thereafter, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants as to the claims of
Named Plaintiffs Everett Scott and Robert Baker but denied summary judgment as to the claims
of Berry. (Docs. 137, 149.) Later, Berry and Defendants reached a settlement. (Doc. 155.)

1

Because Berry brought claims under the FLSA, this Court must approve of the settlement. See
Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981).
Approval
“A district court may only approve a settlement agreement in a case brought under
§ 216(b) of the FLSA after it determines that the litigation involves a bona fide dispute and that
the proposed settlement is fair and equitable to all parties.” Williams v. BPV Mkt. Place
Investors, L.L.C., No. 4:14-CV-1047 CAS, 2014 WL 5017934, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 7, 2014).
Among the factors the court may consider in evaluating the settlement’s fairness are “the stage of
the litigation, the amount of discovery exchanged, the experience of counsel, and the
reasonableness of the settlement amount based on the probability of plaintiffs’ success with
respect to any potential recovery.” Id.
This Court has duly considered all of the submissions presented with respect to the
proposed settlement and finds that the parties’ proposal is a fair and equitable resolution of a
bona fide dispute. For the reasons set forth in the parties’ supporting documentation, this Court
finds the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the members of the proposed collective in
light of the benefits to the collective accruing therefrom, the substantial discovery and
investigation conducted by counsel prior to the proposed settlement, and the complexity,
expense, risks and probable protracted duration of further litigation including any appeal.
The Court has reviewed the terms and conditions of the parties’ proposed settlement,
including the individual settlement amounts and attorneys’ fees. Based on these terms and
conditions, and the Court’s familiarity with this case, the Court finds that the proposed settlement
is the result of arms-length negotiations between the parties after counsel had fully investigated
the claims, including the strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiffs’ claims, after the Court ruled on
2

their respective motions for summary judgment. Based on all these factors, the Court finds that
the proposed settlement has no obvious defects and is within the range of possible settlement
approval such that notice and payment to the FLSA collective as set forth in the proposed
settlement is appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion
for Settlement (Doc. 163), is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants are
DISMISSED with prejudice.

Dated this 31st day of January, 2020.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3