Walsh et al v. Columbus Electric, Inc et al

Filing 45

OPINION and ORDER denying 44 Parties' Motion for Approval. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 9/15/2022. (jk)

Case: 2:20-cv-02857-MHW-EPD Doc #: 45 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 208

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KevinWalsh, efa/.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:20-cv-2857

V.

Judge Michael H. Watson

Columbus, Electric, Inc., etal.,

Magistrate Judge Deavers

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs assert claims under both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")

and Ohio law for, primarily, unpaid overtime. Am. Compl., ECF No. 3. The
parties move for preliminary approval of settlement. Mot, ECF No. 44.
The settlement appears to be structured such that any Rule 23(b)(3) class
member who does not opt-out of the Rule 23(b)(3) class releases both their

FLSA and state-law claims. Although there appears to be a difference of opinion
on the subject, the Undersigned finds such a settlement antithetical to the

purposes behind FLSAcollective actions, which require a plaintiffto affirmatively
opt into the lawsuit by filing a consent to join form with the Court. E.g., Hodges v.
77 Grandville, No. 1:19-cv-81, 2021 WL 5924863, at *1 (W. D. Mich. June 22,

2021) ("Federal courts generally agree that FLSA claims cannot be settled

through a Rule 23 class action. "); Cf. Donatti v. Charter Commc'ns, L. L. C., No.
11-4166-CV-C-MJW, 2012 WL 5207585, at *3 (W. D. Mo. Oct. 22, 2012) ("The
FLSA statute and case law do not support that FLSA claims can be resolved by

Case: 2:20-cv-02857-MHW-EPD Doc #: 45 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 209

settlement or otherwise based on Rule 23 opt-out procedures. While Rule 23

and section 216(b) can proceed concurrently in the same case, they must be
resolved separately. " (citations omitted)).
The Court therefore DENIES the parties' motion for approval. The parties

shall notify the Court within FOURTEEN DAYS whether they wish to pursue
litigation or whether they wish to attempt to negotiate a settlement that resolves
the FLSA claims of only those class members who opt into the settlement by
filing consent to join notices with the Court.

Moreover, any future motion for settlement approval shall indicate the total
amount of damages Plaintiffs forecasted based on discovery and the percentage
of recovery that the gross settlement amount represents. The Court is unable to
determine, with the current information provided, whether the gross $183, 680. 73
settlement is fair for Plaintiffs unless it can compare that recovery to some sort of
benchmark.

Finally, the parties shall limit any redefined classes to those employees
who worked over forty hours in any given workweek, See Am. Compl. ^ 65, 69,

ECF No. 3, or explain why such limitation is unnecessary for the claims asserted.
The Clerk shall terminate ECF No. 44.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case No. 2:20-cv-2857

Page 2 of 2