18 results for 'cat:"Settlements" AND cat:"Class Action" AND cat:"Labor"'.
J. Urias denies, in part, the pizza restaurant's motion to dismiss, ruling that while previous litigation and settlement talks occurred between it and the class of delivery drivers, the parties did not sign a settlement agreement or agree on several key principles, which means there is no binding agreement to preclude this suit from moving forward.
Court: USDC New Mexico, Judge: Urias, Filed On: September 19, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1096, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: settlements, class Action, labor
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Cogan dismisses an unpaid wages complaint against a company who had settled similar claims in a prior class action. The litigant, one of four class members in the class action, sought to challenge the settlement, claiming it was unfair and did not adequately represent his interests, but the court disagrees, finding he had ample opportunity to either raise objections or opt out of the settlement after notices were sent out to potential members.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Cogan, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv5165, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: settlements, class Action, labor
J. Watson grants the class's motion for final approval of its settlement agreement, ruling it meets all commonality and typicality requirements, while the settlement amount will adequately compensate employees for unpaid overtime and avoid a protracted litigation.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Watson, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv2152, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: settlements, class Action, labor
J. Staton grants the $200,000 settlement for the California’s Private Attorneys General Act claim in the employee's complaint alleging that the moving services corporation improperly classified him and other employees as independent contractors to systematically fail to pay them for overtime, rest and meal periods, and business-related expenses. Although the employee does not describe what evidence he has and does not have for his misclassification claim and the penalties associated with this claim, the PAGA settlement is fair and adequate because it is based on sufficient discovery and information and it avoids serious litigation risks.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Staton, Filed On: November 9, 2023, Case #: 8:20cv2092, NOS: Other Labor Litigation - Labor, Categories: settlements, class Action, labor
J. Zilly grants the employee's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a collective and class action settlement for her complaint alleging that the seafood wholesaler does not pay employees for time spent putting on and removing required gear. The proposed gross settlement amount of $600,000 did not change during renegotiations, and the employee's counsel proves that their client is unlikely to prevail on the Fair Labor Standards Act claim otherwise because the seafood wholesaler relocated its time-keeping equipment to employee locker rooms months after this litigation began.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Zilly, Filed On: November 9, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv359, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: settlements, class Action, labor
J. Lioi grants the parties' joint motion for approval of the class-action settlement, ruling the $3.75 million will fairly and adequately compensate the employees for unpaid overtime, while the $20,000 award to the lead plaintiff adequately compensates him for his efforts in leading the litigation.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Lioi, Filed On: October 30, 2023, Case #: 5:22cv287, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: settlements, class Action, labor
J. Wu grants final approval of the $142,500 settlement for the employee's lawsuit alleging that the construction company did not pay its employees overtime wages. The settlement is fair because the overall settlement is close to the valuation of the claims presented under Virgin Islands law, which make up the majority of the original $148,000 exposure model, and it is more than the employees could expect to receive under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Wu, Filed On: October 20, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv7533, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: settlements, class Action, labor
J. Pepper grants the caregiver and assisted living facility's motion for preliminary approval of a collective and class settlement in the caregiver's lawsuit seeking unpaid overtime wages. The proposed collective and class of employees who received bonuses and worked overtime between January 26, 2019, and December 29, 2021, are certified, and the proposed settlement of at most $48,827 plus another $42,311 comprising a service award and attorney fees is preliminarily approved.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Pepper, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv108, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: settlements, class Action, labor
J. Lioi grants, in part, the parties' motion for approval of the class action settlement, ruling the single $500 payment to each of the call center employees will adequately compensate them for previously unpaid work performed at the beginning of their shifts and will also avoid protracted litigation.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Lioi, Filed On: October 13, 2023, Case #: 5:23cv86, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: settlements, class Action, labor
J. Boone approves a $252,000 PAGA settlement of a worker’s wage itemization-related claims against Starbucks. The settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Boone, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv746, NOS: Other Labor Litigation - Labor, Categories: settlements, class Action, labor
J. Fitzgerald grants final approval of an $8 million settlement that will bring an end to the employees' class action alleging that Costco did not compensate them for all working time. Class members will be paid on a pro-rata basis based on the number of days they performed work for Costco during the class period. Class counsel asks for attorney fees of $2.8 million, representing 35% of the settlement, but instead receives $2 million because an upward deviation from the 25% benchmark is not warranted here.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Fitzgerald, Filed On: September 27, 2023, Case #: 5:21cv716, NOS: Other Labor Litigation - Labor, Categories: settlements, class Action, labor