Kumar v. Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc.

Filing 153

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement (Doc. 149 ), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' request to certify an FLSA Collective f or purposes of the settlement only is GRANTED. The Court certifies an FLSA Collective consisting of Named Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members, as listed in Exhibit 1 to the Settlement Agreement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plain tiffs' Counsel's unopposed request for attorneys' fees, as set forth in Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion for Approval (Doc. 151 ), is GRANTED. The Court specifically finds that this was a complex, years-long case invol ving dozens of plaintiffs, that the outcome was unclear, that counsel undertook significant risk in pursuing the case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' requests for costs, Named Plaintiff service payments, and a Settlement Administration Fund, as set forth in Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion for Approval (Doc. 151 ), are GRANTED. The Court specifically finds that, given the involvement of the named Plaintiffs, the proposed service awards are fair and reasonable.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within seven (7) days of Plaintiffs' Counsel's receipt of the settlement checks from Defendant, the parties shall file with the Court a joint stipulation of dismissal of the litigation with prejudice, and take any furt her action necessary for the Court to dismiss the litigation.IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Court will retain jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the settlement, but directs the Clerk to ADMINISTRATI VELY CLOSE the case until such time as such issue arises. The Court finds, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), that there is no just reason for delay, and directs the Clerk to enter this Order of Approval.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 9/30/19. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

PANKAJ KUMAR,

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

and
IVAN CRADDOCK,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS)
INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 4:16-cv-00905-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA
Collective Action Settlement. (Doc. 149.)
Background
On June 20, 2016, Named Plaintiffs Pankaj Kumar and Ivan Craddock filed suit to recoup
unpaid overtime pay and sought to proceed as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”) and as a class under the wage and hour laws of Missouri and Washington against
their former employer, Defendant Tech Mahindra. (Doc. 105.) On July 26, 2017, the Court
conditionally certified an FLSA collective defined as:
All U1-U3 band IT Delivery Engineers employed by Tech Mahindra who were
classified as exempt during any workweek at any time three (3) years prior to
October 5, 2016 through the entry of judgment.

1

(Doc. 46.) Notices were sent to potential collective members and fifty-six individuals opted to
join the suit.
On March 9, 2018, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class under Rule 23. (Doc. 95.) On
March 25, 2019, the Court denied the motion and dismissed all claims other than those of the
Named Plaintiffs. (Doc. 143.) The Court contemporaneously denied Defendant’s request for
partial summary judgment on the FLSA claims. (Id.)
Settlement
On June 7, 2019, the parties agreed to settle the case. A Notice of Settlement was sent to
the opt-in Plaintiffs and thirty-six were executed and timely returned. On September 27, 2019,
Named Plaintiffs filed this Joint Motion for Settlement Approval and numerous supporting
documents, filed under seal. (Docs. 149, 151.)
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

2

finds the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the FLSA Collective Members 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 gross settlement amount, request for approval of attorneys’ fees, request for Named
Plaintiff Service Awards, and formula for determining which portion of the remaining amount
shall be distributed to each of the Named Plaintiffs and Collective Action Members who have
consented to participate in the settlement. 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 extensive,
arms-length negotiations between the parties after counsel had fully investigated the claims,
including the strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiffs’ claims. In addition, the parties solicited the
assistance of an experienced mediator and engaged in a long negotiation that suggests that the
settlement is not collusive. 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 that Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA
Collective Action Settlement (Doc. 149), is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ request to certify an FLSA Collective for
purposes of the settlement only is GRANTED.

3

The Court certifies an FLSA Collective

consisting of Named Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members, as listed in Exhibit 1 to the
Settlement Agreement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s unopposed request for
attorneys’ fees, as set forth in Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion for Approval
(Doc. 151), is GRANTED. The Court specifically finds that this was a complex, years-long
case involving dozens of plaintiffs, that the outcome was unclear, that counsel undertook
significant risk in pursuing the case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ requests for costs, Named Plaintiff
service payments, and a Settlement Administration Fund, as set forth in Plaintiff’s Memorandum
in Support of Joint Motion for Approval (Doc. 151), are GRANTED. The Court specifically
finds that, given the involvement of the named Plaintiffs, the proposed service awards are fair
and reasonable.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within seven (7) days of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s receipt
of the settlement checks from Defendant, the parties shall file with the Court a joint stipulation of
dismissal of the litigation with prejudice, and take any further action necessary for the Court to
dismiss the litigation.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Court will retain jurisdiction over the
construction, interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the settlement, but directs the
Clerk to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the case until such time as such issue arises.
The Court finds, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), that there is no just reason for delay,
and directs the Clerk to enter this Order of Approval.
Dated this 30th day of September, 2019.
________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4