Larson v. Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. et al

Filing 142

ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement, Doc. 140 , is GRANTED. Signed on 3/11/20 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes Mitra, Renea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
CAROLYN M. NICHOLSON,
individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:19-cv-04084-NKL
IOC-BOONVILLE, INC. D/B/A
ISLE OF CAPRI CASINO HOTEL
BOONVILLE,

Case No. 4:16-cv-00902-NKL
Case No. 4:19-cv-00553-NKL

Defendant.
_____________________________________
CYNTHIA D. LARSON, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

Case No. 2:19-cv-04228-NKL
Case No. 2:19-cv-04226-NKL
Consolidated for Purposes of Settlement

Plaintiff,
v.
ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS, INC., and IOCKANSAS CITY, INC. d/b/a ISLE OF CAPRI
CASINO KANSAS CITY,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
MICHAEL C. LILLEY,
and KELLY G. LEWIS,
both individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
IOC-KANSAS CITY, INC. d/b/a ISLE OF
CAPRI CASINO KANSAS CITY,
Defendant.

_____________________________________
MARIA L. SMITH, and
CASANDRA J. HENDERSON,
individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
IOC-CAPE GIRARDEAU LLC D/B/A
ISLE CASINO CAPE GIRARDEAU,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
PAMELA G. DUNLAP, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
IOC-CARUTHERSVILLE, LLC
D/B/A LADY LUCK CASINO
CARUTHERSVILLE,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Sealed Unopposed Motion for Approval of FLSA
Collective Action Settlement (Doc. 56), along with Plaintiffs’ Suggestions in Support (Doc. 57)
and the Declaration of Ryan L. McClelland (Doc. 57-1). Having considered the evidence and
arguments presented, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court GRANTS the motion, and
hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows:
1.

For settlement purposes, the Court finds that members of the proposed settlement

collective are “similarly situated” under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act

2

(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Members of the proposed settlement collective raise similar
legal issues arising from a common policy or practice alleged to be unlawful under the FLSA.
Fairness and procedural considerations, including the number of similarly situated employees
covered by the settlement collective and the effectiveness of allowing them to join in the
litigation to participate in a common settlement, also weigh in favor of collective action
treatment. Accordingly, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the Court certifies this case as an FLSA
collective action for settlement purposes.
2.

The Court has no difficulty concluding that the parties’ FLSA collective action

settlement – negotiated at arm’s length by experienced counsel with the assistance of a highly
regarded wage-and-hour mediator – fairly and reasonably resolves a bona fide dispute, in light
of, among other things, the benefits accruing to members of the FLSA settlement collective, the
substantial discovery conducted by the parties, the parties’ motion practice on contested issues,
and the complexity, risk, expense and possible length of time of continued litigation.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the parties’ FLSA collective action settlement meets the
applicable standard for approval under 29 U.S.C § 216(b) as a fair and equitable resolution of a
bona fide dispute.
3.

The Court approves the proposed service enhancement payments because they are

reasonable and warranted based on the actions that these recipients took over the course of the
litigation to protect and advance the interests of others to whom a substantial benefit has been
conferred under the settlement.
4.

The Court finds that the parties’ proposed Notice, Claim Form, and plan for

distribution and settlement administration include content and utilize a process that is fair,
adequate and reasonable for settlement of an FLSA collective action. The Notice and Claim

3

Form are written in clear, concise and easy to understand language. The Notice and Claim Form
fairly and accurately explain to eligible collective members their legal rights and options under
the settlement. Accordingly, the Court approves the parties’ proposed Notice, Claim Form, and
plan for distribution and settlement administration.

The Court also approves the parties’

selection of Analytics Consulting, LLC as the settlement administrator.
5.

The Court approves the parties’ negotiated agreement that plaintiffs’ counsel

receive as a reasonable attorney’s fee one-third (33.3%) of the common fund recovered for the
benefit of the FLSA settlement collective, plus reimbursement of their stipulated litigation costs.
The reasonableness of this award of attorney’s fees using the “percentage of the benefit”
approach is supported by those factors often considered relevant in a common fund situation,
including (1) the amount involved and results obtained; (2) the contingent nature of the fee; (3)
the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised with respect to the parties’ claims and defenses;
(4) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys; and (5) awards in similar cases.
Although not required, cross-checking the attorney’s fee request against the lodestar in this case
also demonstrates its reasonableness. The stipulated litigation costs appear reasonable and are of
the kind and character typically reimbursed from a settlement fund. Accordingly, the Court
approves the requested award of reasonable attorney’s fees and reimbursement of stipulated
litigation costs.
6.

Without affecting the finality of this Final Order and Judgment, the Court retains

exclusive jurisdiction over the consummation, performance, administration, effectuation, and
enforcement of this Final Order and Judgment as may be necessary and appropriate for the
construction and implementation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

4

7.

This action is hereby dismissed in its entirety as against defendants with

prejudice, and without attorney’s fees or costs to any party except as provided in this Final Order
and Judgment and in the Settlement Agreement. This Final Order and Judgment is “final” within
the meaning of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
8.

The parties shall abide by all terms of the Settlement Agreement, which are

incorporated herein, and this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Nanette K. Laughrey
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
United States District Judge
Dated: March 11, 2020
Jefferson City, Missouri

5