Collins et al v. Covenant Trucking Company, Incorporated et al
Filing
57
ORDER granting 50 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 4/22/2014. (Sawyer, D.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No.: 5:13-CV-257-D
WILLIE COLLINS and LARRY EDGERTON,
both individually and behalf of all
other similarly situated persons,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
V.
COVENANT TRUCKING COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, JOE N. JONES,
JONES, and CARLTON JONES,
ORDER FOR
CLASS CERTIFICATION
)
)
)
WENDY C.
)
)
)
Defendants.
________________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion by the named
plaintiff,
Jones,
defendants
Wendy C.
Jones,
Covenant Trucking Company,
and Carlton Jones
"the Covenant defendants")
support
of
their
Joe N.
(hereinafter referred to as
in furtherance of their settlement agreement
to Certify This Action As a Rule 23 (b) (3)
In
Incorporated,
joint
motion,
the
and FLSA collective action.
parties
have
filed
a
joint
memorandum of law.
The Court has reviewed all of the relevant pleadings and exhibits
in the record concerning this motion and has determined that the named
plaintiffs have met their burden of proof under 29 U.S. C.
Rule 23 (b) {3),
Fed.R.Civ.P.,
to have the plaintiffs'
§216 (b)
and
First and Second
Claim for Relief (Doc. 1 at 6-10 (~~16-22), at 12-18 (~~26-32), at 23-26
(~~41-44),
at 28-31
(~~53-61)
Fair Labor Standards Act
and at 32-33
("FLSA"),
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act
seq.
29 U.S.C.
("NCWHA"),
(~~64-69),
§§
pursuant to the
201 et seq.,
N.C.Gen.Stat.
and the
§§95-25.1 et
certified for settlement purposes as a collective action under 29
1
U.S. C.
§
Covenant
216 (b) ,
defendants
December 31,
§216(b)
and a
for
2013.
class action under Rule
the
time
period
from
23 (b) (3)
April
8,
against
2010
the
through
Collective action certification is allowed under
for only those persons who have filed a written Consent to Sue
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) on or before the date this Court files any
Order approving the terms of the proposed settlement between the named
plaintiff,
the
class
and collective
action he
has
been certified to
represent, and the Covenant defendants.
The
Second
defendants
by
collective
Claim
the
action
for
named
Relief
plaintiffs
they seek
to
Second
plaintiffs
Claim
seek
for
Relief
liquidated
against
damages
Jones,
and Carlton Jones
defendants")
207 (a)
to
is
the
based
against
the
29 U.S. C.
defendants Covenant Trucking Company,
c.
and
represent
liquidated damages under the FLSA,
that
alleged
on
members
a
the
of
collective
§§206 (a)
Covenant
the
Covenant
the
FLSA
action
for
and 216 (b) .
defendants,
alleged
In
the
failure
of
Incorporated, Joe N. Jones, Wendy
(hereinafter referred to as the "Covenant
to pay wages at the overtime rate required by 29 U.S. C.
the plaintiffs and all members
of
the
§
collective group of
persons defined in ~~16-22 of the Complaint as follows:
All dump truck drivers employed by one or more of the
Covenant defendants for at least one month at any time in
the time period starting with the first workweek ending on
or after April 11, 2010 through the date final judgment is
entered in this action, who were paid at less than the
overtime rate required by the FLSA for all hours worked for
any workweek in that same time period in which any such
driver (s) was employed in excess of 40 hours in the same
workweek.
Complaint, Doc. 1 at 6 and 8-9 (~~16-17 and 19-20).
The First Claim for Relief alleged against those same defendants
is a
NCWHA,
statutory claim for back wages and liquidated damages under the
N.C.Gen.Stat.
§§ 95-25.6,
95-25.13(1}-(2),
2
95-25.22(a),
and 95-
25.22 (a1)
based upon the Covenant defendants'
failure to pay promised
wages to the plaintiffs and the class members at the promised wage rate
the
defendants
disclosed
to
them
pursuant
to
2 5 . 13 ( 1) - ( 2 ) and 13 N. C . A. C . Tit . 12 § . 0 8 0 3 .
Relief
against
payment
of
defendants'
with
the
Covenant
back wages
and
defendants,
N.C.Gen.Stat.
§§
95-
In that First Claim for
the
named
liquidated damages
plaintiffs
based on
the
seek
Covenant
alleged use of a number of different employment practices
respect
to
payment
of
promised
wages
that
resulted
in
the
underpayment of promised wages to the named plaintiffs and all members
of
the
Rule
23(b) (3)
class
of
persons
defined
in
,,26-28
of
the
Complaint as follows:
All dump truck drivers employed by one or more of the
Covenant defendants for at least one month at any time in in
the time period starting with the first workweek ending on
or after April 8, 2011 through the date final judgment is
entered in this action, and who were not paid all wages when
due at the hourly wage rate disclosed to them pursuant
N.C.Gen.Stat. §§ 95-25.13(1)-(2) for all hours worked in
those same workweeks regardless of the total of hours worked
in any such workweek.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 43 at 1 (,(1))
Pursuant to the terms of a settlement of this action between the
parties,
the
parties
have
stipulated
to
class
certification
plaintiff's NCWHA claim for the time period from April 8,
December
31,
2013,
the
last
date
on
which
the
of
the
2011 through
Covenant
defendants
employed any new dump truck driver not already covered by the terms of
the
Settlement
Agreement
described
in
this
Order.
stipulation and other evidence before the Court,
Based upon
that
the Court finds that
the plaintiffs' NCWHA stipulated class consists of more than 40 persons
that are listed in Doc. 42-29 filed with the Court.
To date, the named
plaintiffs have filed a written consent to sue under 29 U.S.C. §216(b)
and there are seven (7)
other "similarly situated" members of the FLSA
3
collective action who have filed Consents to Sue pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §
216(b) that the named plaintiffs seek to represent against the Covenant
defendants.
Some of the NCWHA and FLSA collective action members are
employed in transient, long haul trucking or reside in another state.
The Court finds that the named plaintiffs and the workers in the
FLSA
collective
action
represent under 29 U.S.C.
meaning of 29 U.S.C.
collective
action
of
employees
§ 216(b)
that
the
plaintiffs
seek
to
are "similarly situated" within the
§216(b), and are sufficiently numerous to warrant
certification under
that
statute.
Bulmaro
Ceras-
Campo, et al. v. WF Partnership, et al., Civil Action No. 5:10-CV-215-BO
(E.D.N.C. Order of Class Certification filed May 11,
2012) (Doc.
at 3-4; Vincente Jimenez-Orozco v. Baker Roofing Co.,
5:05-CV-34-FL,
Dec. 21,
See
also
2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 93860,
2007); Leyva v. Buley,
Haywood
v.
Barnes,
at *9
125 F.R.D.
109
512,
F.R.D.
Civil Action No.
(E.D.N.C.
514-15
568,
43-2),
Order filed
(E.D.Wa. 1989).
576-77
(E.D.N.C.
1986) (citing case authority in which classes composed of as few as 18
persons were certified under Rule 23{b) (3),
Fed.R.Civ.P.).
The Court
also agrees with the factual allegations in ~28 of the Complaint
1 at 14)
(Doc.
and finds that the class of persons that the named plaintiff
seeks to represent under Rule 23(b){3),
Fed.R.Civ.P.,
with respect to
their First Claim for Relief under the NCWHA (Doc. 1 at 12-18 (~~26-32),
at 23-26
(~~41-44),
at 28-31
(~~53-61)
and at 32-33
to the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act
25 .1 et seq.,
(~~64-66),
pursuant
("NCWHA"), N.C.Gen.Stat.
§§95-
is sufficiently numerous and adequately defined to meet
the standard for numerosity set forth in Rule
23 (a) (1),
Fed.R.Civ.P.
Id.
In addition,
the
Court
finds under Rule 23 (a) (2},
Fed.R.Civ.P.,
that the questions of law or fact common to the NCWHA class alleged in
4
~~29-30
of the Complaint (Doc. 1 at 14-17) do exist with respect to the
individual claims by the named plaintiffs set forth in First Claim for
Relief under the NCWHA that is alleged in the plaintiffs'
Complaint.
See Vincente Jimenez-Orozco v. Baker Roofing Co., Civil Action No. 5:05-
CV-34-FL,
Dec. 21,
2007
U.S.Dist.LEXIS
2007); Leyva v.
Haywood v.
Barnes,
93860,
Buley,
109 F.R.D.
for the reasons stated in
*9-*11
125 F.R.D.
568,
~31
at
576-77
512,
(E.D.N.C.
514-15
(E.D.N.C.
of the Complaint
Order filed
(E.D.Wa.
1986).
(Doc.
1989);
Similarly,
1 at 17-18),
the
claim of the named plaintiffs under the NCWHA are typical of the NCWHA
claim of the class members that the named plaintiffs seek to represent.
See
Jimenez-Orozco
v.
Baker
Roofing
Co.,
supra,
2007
U.S. Dist. LEXIS
93860, at *11-*12, Leyva v. Buley, supra; Haywood v. Barnes, 109 F.R.D.
at 577-78.
The
that
court's
indicates
defendants,
determination
that
the
named
on
typicality
plaintiffs
is
allege
based upon evidence
that
the
Covenant
as the employer of the named plaintiffs and the class they
seek to represent, allegedly did not pay them wages at the rate that the
Covenant defendants disclosed pursuant to N.C.Gen.Stat.
(2)
§§95-25.13(1)-
for various workweeks when those wages were due for the driver work
that they performed in the time period beginning on April 8,
ending with December 31,
2013.
supported by the plaintiffs'
2011 and
This finding of typicality is further
allegation and documentary evidence that
the Covenant defendants violated their disclosures under N.C.Gen.Stat.
§§ 95-25.13(1)-(2) with the named plaintiffs and the class they seek to
represent to pay wages when due
of the plaintiffs and the class)
(in their alleged capacity as employers
at the promised and disclosed rate in
violation of G.S. §95-25.6 based upon the Covenant defendants' use of a
number of employment practices with respect to payment of promised wages
5
that are documented by a series of Declarations and wage records that
the
plaintiffs
have
presented
to
the
Court.
The
commonality
or
similarity that the named plaintiffs share with those class members they
seek to represent lies in the fact that the issues raised in the claims
of the named plaintiffs are common to those of the persons whom they
seek to represent with respect to the following issues:
{1)
Whether the Covenant defendants maintained an unwritten
and
unannounced
defendants
practice
concerning
and policy
promised
of
wages
the
in
Covenant
which
the
Covenant defendants departed from their regular timecounting procedure
for
counting
the
time
recorded on
each driver employee's timecard of rounding the punch
out
time
to
the
nearest
quarter
reducing that time by always
when
the
elapsed
time
hour,
and
rounding that
between
the
time
instead
time down
marked
the
shift-ending fuel receipt and the punch out time marked
on the employee's time card exceeded 10 minutes?
{2)
Whether
the
Covenant
defendants
deducted
from
the
elapsed time between the moment in time that the named
plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers punched
in their time card to start recorded work time and the
moment in time that the punched out his time card at
the end of his shift by arbitrarily denying credit for
all hours worked by deducting or not counting anywhere
from 15 minutes of "no pay" time to hours of "no pay"
time from the elapsed time between punch in and punch
6
out
clock
time
recorded
on
each
driver
employee's
timecard?
( 3)
Whether
the
Covenant
compensate as work
defendants
time certain
failed
to
count
"off-the-clock",
and
pre-
trip inspection work?
Whether
(4)
the
Covenant
defendants
failed
to
count
compensate as work time certain "off-the-clock",
trip
and
post-
inspection work described in Covenant's Driver's
Handbook & Safety Manual
(~17(b))
and Doc.
that
43 at 3
is described in Doc.
(~(4)A.)(Plaintiffs'
1
Rule 23
Motion)?
The
named plaintiffs
under Rule 23 (a) (4),
are
adequate
Fed.R.Civ.P.
representatives
of
the
Present counsel for the plaintiffs
are experienced attorney who have litigated other class actions.
e.g.,
Bulmaro
Ceras-Campo,
et
class
al.
v.
WF
Parnership,
et
al.,
See,
supra
(Robert J. Willis counsel for class action involving more than 100 H-2A
workers);
Jimenez-Orozco v.
Baker Roofing Co.,
supra
(Robert J.
counsel for class action involving close to 1,000 workers);
Willis
Haywood v.
Barnes, 109 F.R.D. at 573 and 579 (Robert J. Willis acts as counsel for
class action involving almost 800 migrant workers) . An affidavit of lead
counsel
demonstrates
that
the
named plaintiffs
have
maintained their
interest in this litigation and made themselves available to plaintiff's
counsel throughout this litigation, have provided sworn Declarations and
detailed responses to interrogatory and document discovery requests from
the Covenant defendants.
Therefore,
requirements of Rule 23(a)
for certification of class action have been
met.
the Court finds that all of the
Having made this determination, the Court further determines that
7
questions of law or fact common to the class members in the plaintiffs'
NCWHA
class
claim
predominate
individual class members,
available
methods
for
controversy.
See
U.S.Dist.LEXIS
109 F.R.D.
Barnes,
fair
and
Jimenez-Orozco
at
any
questions
affecting
only
and that a class action is superior to other
the
93860,
over
v.
*13-*15,
at 577-78.
efficient
Baker
Leyva
adjudication
Roofing
v.
Buley,
Co.,
of
this
supra,
2007
supra;
Haywood
v.
This finding is based upon the total
absence of any questions of fact affecting any individual class members
with respect to the NCWHA claim of the NCWHA class members and the four
(4)
common issues enumerated in pages 6-7 above of this Order that the
named plaintiffs and the NCWHA class members all share.
Accordingly, the joint motion for certification of the plaintiffs'
First Claim for Relief under the NCWHA as a
23(b)(3),
Fed.R.Civ.P.,
class action under Rule
is GRANTED for the time period from April 8,
2011 through December 31,
2013 for those persons included in the class
definition set forth above.
The joint motion for class certification of
the FLSA collective action that is defined above under the FLSA is also
GRANTED with
respect
to all
those
Consent to Sue under 29 U.S.C.
persons
§216(b)
who have
filed
a
written
on or before the date on which
the Court files any Order approving the terms of the proposed settlement
between the named plaintiffs and the Covenant defendants.
The
named
plaintiffs
shall
provide
certification of both the Rule 23 (b) (3)
written
notice
of
this
class and the statutory class
under 29 U.S.C. §216(b) and the terms of the proposed settlement of that
Rule 23(b) (3)
this
Court
class and statutory class in a Notice to be approved by
in
English.
That
Notice
shall
then
be
translated
into
Spanish for distribution to all putative class and collective action
members
by U.S.
Mail,
first
class delivery,
8
postage prepaid,
to the
valid, last known address of each class and collective action member on
or before the date falling thirty (30) days after the date on which the
Court approves the content and method of notice distribution to those
class and FLSA collective action members in this case.
the direct mailing to the members of
action
that
the
Court
has
certified
To facilitate
the class and FLSA collective
in
this
Order,
the
Covenant
defendants shall provide the plaintiff's counsel with any information in
the possession of any of the Covenant defendants as to the valid,
known mailing address of each class member within fifteen
last
(15) days of
the date of this order to allow the plaintiffs to provide that notice.
In addition,
within sixty (60)
days after the date on which the Court
approves the content and method of notice distribution to the class and
collective action members in this case,
the Covenant defendants shall
provide by hand delivery a summary of the Notice to Class approved by
the Court to each member of the class and/ or FLSA collective action
certified by the Court who is employed by one or more of the Covenant
defendants to work under the H-2A program in 2014 where that member(s)
continues
to be an employee of defendant Covenant Trucking Company,
Incorporated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED at
11.
RG..IQ.aj h
,
North Carolina,
this the
day of --L-A"-"o....at •'..L-1_ _ _ _ _ _ , 2 o~f:..
.......
I
COURT JUDGE
9
Exhibit 1
A.
This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is made between plaintiffs Willie
Collins and Lany Edgerton and defendants Covenant Trucking Company, Inc., Joe N. Jones,
Wendy C. Jones and Carlton Jones (hereinafter referred to as "the Covenant defendants") for the
purpose of settling the various claims, controversies and disputes among these parties arising out
of the facts and circumstances relating to litigation styled as Willie Collins and Larry Edgerton,
eta/. v. Covenant Trucking Company, Inc., Joe N. Jones, Wendy C. Jones, and Carlton Jones,
Civil Action No: 5-13-CV-257-D (E.D.N.C. Complaint filed April 8, 2013) (hereinafter referred to
as the "Lawsuit").
B.
In the Lawsuit, Plaintiffs asserted claims against the Covenant defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., and the N01th Carolina
Wage and Hour Act, N.C.G.S. § 95-25.1, et seq.
C.
The mediation of this case was conducted on January 31, 2014, by M. Robin
Davis and the parties reached the following agreement:
1.
The patties agree to file a joint motion and supp01ting memorandum for
preliminary and final approval of class celtification for settlement purposes under Rule 23(b)(3),
Fed. R. Civ. P, for the following class and collective action cetiification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §
216(b) of the following collective action:
a.
Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class:
All dump truck drivers employed by one or more of the Covenant defendants for at least
one month at any time in the time period statting with the first workweek ending on or after
April 8, 2011 through the date final judgment is entered in this action, and who were not paid all
wages when due at the hourly wage rate disclosed to them pmsuant N.C.Gen.Stat. §§ 9525.13(1)-(2) for all hours worked in those same workweeks regardless of the total of hours
worked in any such workweek.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 43 at 1 (~(1)).
Page 1 of9
b.
FLSA Collective Action:
All dump truck drivers employed by one or more of the Covenant defendants for at least
one month at any time in the time period starting with the first workweek ending on or after
April 11, 2010 through·the date final judgment is entered in this action, who were paid at less
than the overtime rate required by the FLSA for all hours worked for any workweek in that same
time period in which any such driver(s) was employed in excess of 40 hours in the same
workweek.
·
Complaint, Doc. I at 6 and 8-9 (~116-17 and 19-20).
2.
Defendants will pay to and/or on behalf of Plaintiffs the aggregate sum of
Ninety-Two Thousand Dollars $92,000.00 ("Settlement Amount"). The Settlement Amount will
be allocated among the named Plaintiffs, the unnamed Plaintiffs who have filed
Consents/Declarations, the as yet unnamed Plaintiffs who have not yet filed Consents (including
any reversion amounts), Costs and Attomeys' Fees as follows:
a.
Willie Colllins, named plaintiff- $7,764.00
b.
Larry Edgerton, named plaintiff- $5,520.00
c.
Albert Jackson, declarant & consenting person - $1,422.00
(calculated at $79/month for 18 months of covered employment by Covenant defendants).
d.
Pete McKinnon, declarant &
consenting person - $2,212
(calculated at $79/month for 28 months of covered employment by Cov~nant defendants).
e.
Bennie Yarborough, declarant & consenting person - $2,2212.00
(calculated at $79/month for 28 months of covered employment by Covenant defendants).
f.
Mat·k Hargrove, Sr., declat·ant & consenting person - $592.50
(calculated at $79/month for 7.5 months of covered employment by Covenant defendants).
g.
Derrick Catter, declarant &
consenting person - $592.50
(calculated at $79/month for 7. 5 months of covered employment by Covenant defendants).
Page 2 of9'
h.
Dietrich Thompson, declarant & consenting person - $1,185.00
(calculated at $79/month for 15 months of covered employment by Covenant defendants).
i.
Eight thousand eight hundred dollars and no cents ($8,800.00) for
putative members of settlement class and Donald Ray Smith funded and payable at rate of
$10.73 for each month worked for 41 months for estimated 20 regularly employed drivers.
j.
Seven thousand seven hundred dollars and no cents ($7,700.00) for
payment of out-of-pocket litigation expenses paid by plaintiffs' counsel to date.
k.
Fifty-four thousand dollars ($54,000.00) for payment of attorney
fees to the Law Office of Robert J. Willis, P.A. and The Law Office of Michael Jacula, P.C.,
with seventy-five percent (75%) of that amount payable to the Law Office of Robelt J.
Willis, P.A. and twenty-five percent (25%) of that amount payable to the Law Office of
Michael Jacula, P.C.
3.
For tax purposes, payments allocated to the named Plaintiffs and the 6
additional persons named in
~~C.2.d.-i.
above who have, as of the date of this Agreement
completed Consents and Declarations, 50% of the payment shall be treated as wages, and the
Covenant defendants will take normal and ordinary payroll withholdings from the payment
amount. The remaining 50% of any payments shall be paid without withholding. The Covenant
defendants will issue W-2 and/or 1099 reports to all pet·sons who receive settlement payments, as
required by law.
4.
The Settlement Amount will be paid on the following schedule: $30,000
paid within 30 days of the Order of the Coutt approving the Settlement; the balance payable at
the rate of $5,000 per month on the last business day of each month thereafter until paid in full.
Page 3 of9
5.
The Settlement Amount will be payable pursuant to Consent Judgment
and Order, to be approved by all counsel.
6.
The named Plaintiffs and the Covenant defendants will enter into a
Settlement Agreement and Consent Judgment that will contain tetms typical to such agreements
as well as the following consent decree provisions:
•
Down time will be added to hours worked for purposes of determining overtime
•
Employees will be notified in writing by the next business day on which they
work if their pay is docked and the reason the pay is being docked. This will be
recorded on the daily employee produCtion sheets or time cards by the employer
on the day that the employer (or any lead person designated by the employer)
observes the basis for the deduction. This shall not be construed to limit the
employers' right to discipline employees for work violations including time card
violations.
7.
The parties have agreed to the following tetms ~nd conditions of
settlement on behalf of the members of the class and collective action for which they have agreed
to file the Joint Motion that is described in ~C.l. above of this Settlement Agreement:
a.
Upon final approval of the terms of this Settlement Agreement by
the Com1, payment to the named plaintiff and each class and/or collective action member entitled
to compensation under one or more paragraph of this Settlement Agreement shall be entitled to
receive that compensation by provision to the office of Robet1 J. Willis, P.O. Box 1269 Raleigh,
NC 27601, fax number (919) 821-1763, e-mail address: ycaceres@tjwillis-law.com, by
facsimile, U.S. Mail, and/or e-mail of a copy of a government-issued photographic identification
such as driver's license of the named plaintiffs and each such class and/or collective action
membet· within the time period set and approved by the Court for the submission of that
document. Subject to the availability of funds received from Covenant defendants pursuant to ·
Page 4 of9
the provisions of ~~C.2.a.-i. and C.4. above of the Settlement Agreement, claims shall then be
paid as they come in to the Law Office ofRobett J. Willis, P.A. with the costs of transmission to
each such claimant by any form other than U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, first class delivery, or inperson delivery in-person delivery at the Law Office ofRobet1 J. Willis, P.A. in Raleigh, North
Carolina or the Law Office of Michael Jacula, P.C. in Wake Forest, Notih Carolina to be
deducted from the amount each class and/or collective action member is due.
b.
One hundred percent (1 00%) of any unclaimed proceeds after the
time period established and approved by the Court for Rule 23(b)(3) and FLSA collective action
members to claim any payment of compensation due under the terms of this settlement shaH
revert to the Frum Labor Research Project d/b/a the Campaign for Migrant Worker Justice
("CMWJ"), a § 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable corporation organized to provide education and
support services to migrant and seasonal agricultural workers.
c.
The patties to this agreement shall file a joint motion and
supporting memorandum for:
(i)
approval of preliminary and final notices to the members of
the putative class and collective action regarding any Order the Court may
enter with respect to certification of this action as a class and/or collective
action and its preliminary or final approval of the terms of this settlement,
(ii)
the method of distribution to be used to distribute any
notice to the putative and/or actual members of the class and/or collective
action descdbed in ~C.l. above of this Settlement Agreement pursuant to
Rule 23(c)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., and/or 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
Page 5 of9
8.
After payment of all of the sums provided herein, the Covenant
defendants, their predecessors, successors, affiliates, agents, employees, officers, directors,
attorneys, assigns, and each of them, is released, acquitted, dismissed, and forever discharged for
any and all claims, demands, costs, causes of action, demands, damages (actual and punitive),
costs, judgments, expenses, liabilities, attorneys fees and legal costs, injunctive or declaratory
'
'
relief, whether known or unknown, whether in law or in equity, whether in tort or in contract, of
any kind or character, of the plaintiff, or of the members of the Rule 23(b)(3) and FLSA
collective action members, by reasons of any matter, known or unknown, arising from, or
relating in any way to the matters described in the Lawsuit, except that the parties reserve the
right to bring all necessary actions to enforce the obligations incun·ed by the Covenant defendant
pursuant to this Settlement Agreement or any other document executed pursuant to this
Settlement Agreement.
9.
The Covenant defendants have denied and continue to deny any liability.
Nothing in this agreement shall constitute any admission or evidence of any violation of the law
or other wrongful activity.
10.
Plaintiffs' Counsel shall be responsible to draft the Settlement Agreement,
the Consent Judgment, the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and all necessary
accompanying documents, all of which shall be subject to the review and approval of counsel for
Defendants.
11.
The Parties agree that the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and all
necessary documents will be completed and filed with the Comt no later than sixty (60) days
from the date ofthis Agreement.
Page 6 of9
12.
Bach Party shall be responsible for !-S orthe mediator's fee.
13.
The n11med plaintiffs Willie Collins and Larry Edgerton and the Covenant
defendants wish to resolve all claims and controversy between them arising out of this action and
hereby enter Into this Agreement for that express purpose.
D.
BlndJng. It is understood and agreed by the parties that this Agreement shall be
binding and inure to the benefit of the Plaintiffs and the Covenant defendants and their
respective, heirs, representatives, successors and assigns.
B.
Authority. Plaintiffs' Counsel and Counsel for the Covenant defendants each
affirm that they have full authority to bind the respective parties whom they represent In this
action and to enter into this Agreement on behalf of those parties.
F.
Modlfic:aUon, This Agreement may be modified only by a written document
signed by all parties that makes specific referenc6 to this Agreement.
0,
Multiple Originals nnd Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in
multiple orlglnnls and separate counterparts each of which shall constitute an original and all of
which taken together shall constitute the whole Agreement.
Ph\intiff, Willie Collins
.
Date: 3-2o- \ l4
d'
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?