Myers v. Loomis Armored US, LLC, DOCKET NO. 3:18-cv-00532-FDW-DSC

SHAKEERA MYERS, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOOMIS ARMORED US, LLC, Defendant.

DOCKET NO. 3:18-cv-00532-FDW-DSC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION

April 8, 2020

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Collective and Class Action Settlement (Doc. No. 76). Also before the Court are the Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses (Doc. No. 64) and the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Service Awards (Doc. No. 66).

Plaintiff Shakeera Myers worked as an Armored Service Technician ("AST") for Defendant Loomis Armored US, LLC ("Defendant" or "Loomis"). She asserts claims on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., 216(b); and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.1, et seq. Plaintiff claims that Defendant failed to pay its ASTs, including armed drivers, armed messengers, and armed guards, all wages owed, including overtime at a rate of one-and-one-half their regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of forty (40) hours per week. Plaintiff also alleges that Loomis allegedly maintained a corporate policy of deducting the costs of bulletproof vests and firearms from employees' wages, without obtaining the employees' prior written authorization as well as failing to pay employees all promised wages, including compensation at a rate of one-and-one-half their regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of forty (40) hours per week. Defendant denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind under the FLSA and NCWHA and pled various defenses.

In addition to extensive and meaningful discovery, this case has already involved extensive litigation over a variety of motions. While full, class-wide merits discovery was nearly complete with dispositive motion briefing underway along with trial preparation, the parties engaged in substantial negotiations and briefing prior to the grant of Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and Class Certification. (Doc. No. 26). Soon after Plaintiff's Motion was granted, (Doc. No. 37), the Parties participated in a mandatory mediation pursuant to the Court's order. Prior to mediation, Defendants provided to Plaintiffs the necessary time and payroll data for Plaintiffs to conduct a data analysis and calculate possible damages for Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals.

On September 16, 2019, the parties met with mediator Hunter Hughes III at his offices in Atlanta, Georgia, a nationally recognized class- and collective-action wage and hour mediator, who served as mediator by agreement of the Parties. At the mediation, the Parties reached an agreement in principle. After further negotiation, the Parties reached the Settlement Agreement described below on November 4, 2019. See generally (Doc. No. 63-1).

On November 4, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement consistent with the Parties' Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, to (1) grant preliminary approval of the proposed class and collective action settlement; (2) approve the appointment of Angeion Group as settlement administrator; and (3) approve the proposed notice of the settlement and claim forms. (Doc. No. 62).

On December 16, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved, subject to further consideration thereof at the Final Approval Hearing, (1) the Parties' Stipulation and Settlement Agreement; (2) the proposed Notices for mailing, consistent with the procedures outlined in the Parties' Stipulation and Settlement Agreement; and (3) the appointment of Angeion as the Settlement Administrator. See generally (Doc. No. 69).

Also, consistent with the Parties' Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, the Court set the deadline for members of the certified class to submit claim forms, opt out of the settlement, or submit an objection. Id. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court scheduled a fairness hearing for April 8, 2020 at 9:30 a.m., to determine whether the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair. Id.

Prior to distribution of notice to the class, the Parties discovered that the requisite Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") notices were not sent to the appropriate officials within 10 days of Plaintiff filing the proposed agreement with the Court, as set out in the agreement. Thus, on December 30, 2019, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Mail Class Action Fairness Notice by January 9, 2020. (Doc. No. 70). The Court granted the motion the following day. (Doc. No. 71).

On January 14, 2020, the Parties filed a joint motion for extension of time to extend the notice period from January 15, 2020 to January 22, 2020, and clarification of three items related to the settlement notice process. See (Doc. No. 72). On January 15, 2020, the Court granted the Parties' joint motion. (Doc. No. 73).

Finally, Angeion was appointed to serve as the neutral, third-party Settlement Administrator in this case, (Doc. No. 69, p. 7), and consistent with the Parties' SettlementAgreement, the Court ordered and authorized Angeion to perform the administrative duties outlined in its December 16, 2019 and January 15, 2020 Orders. (Docs. Nos. 69, 73).

Having considered the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval (Doc. No. 76), their Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses (Doc. No. 64), their Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Service Awards (Doc. No. 66), and the supporting declarations, the oral argument presented at the fairness hearing, and the complete record in this action, for the reasons set forth therein and stated on the record at the April 8, 2020 fairness hearing, and for good cause shown,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval (Doc. No. 76) is GRANTED and finally approves the settlement as set forth in the Parties' Settlement Agreement, (Doc. No. 63-1, p. 2-61) ("Settlement Agreement").

Procedural Fairness

2. The proposed settlement is procedurally fair and was reached through vigorous, arm's-length negotiations and after experienced counsel had evaluated the merits of Plaintiff's claims. See West v. Cont'l Auto., Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00502-FDW-DSC, 2018 WL 1146642, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 5, 2018) ("The Settlement was not hastily arrived at. Indeed, the Settlement followed lengthy discussions and considerable dialogue between the Parties, as well as arms-length negotiations involving extensive argument and counterargument."); Matthews v. Cloud 10 Corp., No. 4:13-cv-646-FDW-DSC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114586, at *8 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 2015); Saman v. LBDP, Inc., No. DKC 12-1083, 2013 WL 2949047, at *4 (D. Md. June 13, 2013); In re Dollar Gen. Stores Litig., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98162, at *12 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2011); seealso Toure v. Amerigroup Corp., No. 10 Civ. 5391 (RLM), 2012 WL 3240461, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2012) (finding settlement to be "procedurally fair, reasonable, adequate, and not a product of collusion" after plaintiffs "conducted a thorough investigation. . . . [and] enlisted the services of an experienced employment [law] mediator.").

3. Class Counsel conducted thorough investigations and evaluated the claims and defenses, engaged in substantial discovery, motion practice, and reached a settlement after a mediation between the Parties. See generally (Docs. Nos. 26, 62, 63, 63-1).

4. On September 16, 2019, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation session with an experienced employment mediator. Over the next couple of months, the Parties continued to negotiate additional terms of the settlement, which they memorialized in the Settlement Agreement. See (Doc. No. 63-1, p. 2-61). These arm's-length negotiations involved counsel and a mediator well-versed in wage and hour law, raising a presumption that the Settlement meets the requirements of due process. See Toure, 2012 WL 3240461, at *3. Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever of any coercion or collusion or any other improper dealing that would lead to a finding that the negotiations were in any way unfair. See West, 2018 WL 1146642, at *5 ("[T]here is no evidence in the record before the Court, nor has there been any suggestion by anyone, that there has been any fraud or collusion among the Parties or their attorneys in arriving at the terms of this Settlement.").

Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable

5. The settlement is substantively fair and meets all factors that illuminate this analysis. See Sharp Farms v. Speaks, 917 F.3d 276, 299 (4th Cir. 2019); Berry v. Schulman, 807 F.3d 600, 614 (4th Cir. 2015); In re Jiffy Lube Secs. Litig., 927 F.2d 155, 158-59 (4th Cir. 1991);see also Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 452 (2d Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000).

6. The factors the Court considers are: (1) the posture of the case at the time the settlement was proposed; (2) the extent of discovery that had been conducted; (3) the circumstances surrounding the negotiations; and (4) the experience of counsel in FLSA class action litigation. See Berry, 807 F.3d at 614; Scardelletti v. Debarr, 43 F. App'x 525, 528 (4th Cir. 2002) (per curiam); In re Jiffy Lube Secs. Litig., 927 F.2d at 158-59; West, 2018 WL 1146642, at *4.

7. Litigation through trial would be complex, expensive, and uncertain. Thus, the posture of the case at the time the settlement was proposed weighs in favor of final approval.

8. The class members' reaction to the settlement was positive. The Notices sent to all Settlement Class Members included an explanation of their damages calculated pursuant to payroll and time records produced by Loomis and finalized on a pro-rata basis. The form of the Court-approved notice sent to the Rule 23 Settlement Class also informed such individuals of their right to...