Opinion
C.A. No. 1:18-cv-11499
05-10-2021
Robenson JEAN-PIERRE, Jean Metelus, Bill McKee, and Michael Gary Fauntleroy, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J&L CABLE TV SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Pro Hac Vice, Shoshana Savett, Pro Hac Vice, Berger Montague, PC, Philadelphia, PA, Carolyn H. Cottrell, Pro Hac Vice, Michelle S. Lim, Pro Hac Vice, Ori Edelstein, Pro Hac Vice, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Emeryville, CA, Matthew W. Thomson, Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs Robenson Jean-Pierre, Jean Metelus, Bill McKee. Alexandra K. Piazza, Pro Hac Vice, Shoshana Savett, Pro Hac Vice, Berger Montague, PC, Philadelphia, PA, Carolyn H. Cottrell, Pro Hac Vice, Ori Edelstein, Pro Hac Vice, Michelle S. Lim, Pro Hac Vice, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, Emeryville, CA, Matthew W. Thomson, Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Plaintiff Michael Gary Fauntleroy. Frederick B. Finberg, Peter Bennett, Sarah Hall, The Bennett Law Firm, P.A., Portland, ME, for Defendant.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Pro Hac Vice, Shoshana Savett, Pro Hac Vice, Berger Montague, PC, Philadelphia, PA, Carolyn H. Cottrell, Pro Hac Vice, Michelle S. Lim, Pro Hac Vice, Ori Edelstein, Pro Hac Vice, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Emeryville, CA, Matthew W. Thomson, Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs Robenson Jean-Pierre, Jean Metelus, Bill McKee.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Pro Hac Vice, Shoshana Savett, Pro Hac Vice, Berger Montague, PC, Philadelphia, PA, Carolyn H. Cottrell, Pro Hac Vice, Ori Edelstein, Pro Hac Vice, Michelle S. Lim, Pro Hac Vice, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, Emeryville, CA, Matthew W. Thomson, Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Plaintiff Michael Gary Fauntleroy.
Frederick B. Finberg, Peter Bennett, Sarah Hall, The Bennett Law Firm, P.A., Portland, ME, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WOLF, D.J. Plaintiffs have brought a putative class and collective action against their former employer, defendant J&L Cable TX Services, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and related Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania wage and hours laws. See Amended Complaint (Dkt No. 91).
On October 14, 2020, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement (Docket No. 120) (the "Motion"). The court held a hearing on the Motion on February 3, 2021. Following this hearing, the court ordered plaintiffs to make supplemental filings in support of their Motion. See February 4, 2021 Order (Dkt. No. 126). They have done so. See Dkt. No. 131 (the "Supplemental Memorandum").
After considering plaintiffs’ supplemental filings, and for the reasons discussed at the February 3, 2021 hearing and explained further below, the Motion is being allowed.
As a threshold matter, the court has questioned whether it could properly exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims in addition to their FLSA claims. A district court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims "that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The court may nevertheless decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim if:
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). This question is left to the discretion of the trial court. See Grispino v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 2004) ; see also McLaughlin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 224 F.R.D. 304, 313 (D. Mass. 2004). +
The court now concludes that it may and should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. In Pueblo Int'l, Inc. v. De Cardona, 725 F.2d 823, 826 (1st Cir. 1984), the First Circuit held that a district court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law civil rights claims in a suit alleging violations of federal law and the United States Constitution. Pueblo Int'l, Inc. v. De Cardona, 725 F.2d 823, 826 (1st Cir. 1984). The First Circuit found that the state and federal claims arose from the same case or controversy because the state law claims "allege[d] violations of provisions very similar to those contained in the federal Constitution and in federal statutes," and "[t]he facts necessary to prove a violation of the one [were] practically the same as those needed to prove a violation of the other." See id.
Here, plaintiffs’ state and federal law claims similarly overlap and can be considered a single case or controversy. The class and collective members were all employed by defendant as technicians over a similar period of time. See Amended Complaint at ¶¶51, 58, 68, 78, 88 (defining state law classes and FLSA Collective). Their state law and FLSA claims are based on the same alleged practices of defendant having technicians work off-the-clock, reducing their hours reportedly worked, and failing to pay overtime. See, e.g., Amended Complaint at ¶42.
In analogous FLSA cases courts have concluded that a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law wage and hour claims. See, e.g., Lindsay v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 448 F.3d 416, 424 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (because "members of both [the FLSA and State Law] classes performed the same type of work for the same employer and were deprived of overtime compensation as a result of the same action taken by their employer," their state and federal law claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and thus form part of the same Article III case or controversy"; Humphrey v. Rav Investigative & Sec. Servs. Ltd., 169 F. Supp. 3d 489, 503 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (accord). Consistent with these cases, the court concludes that it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case.
It is also appropriate for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. This is not a case where the state law claims raise novel or complex issues of state law, or where the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1)(3).
Nor do the state law claims predominate over the FLSA claims. See U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1)(3). When assessing predominance in the context of FLSA claims, courts have "focused on the size of the state law class action as compared with the FLSA collective action, the different terms of proof required by the state law class actions, and whether the FLSA collective action is an appendage to the more comprehensive state action." In re Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. Overtime Pay Litig., 638 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1299 (D. Colo. 2009) (citing De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 312 (3d Cir. 2003), as amended (Nov. 14, 2003)). In this case, there are approximately 475 anticipated state law class members and 218 total FLSA collective opt-ins. Compare De Asencio, 342 F.3d at 312 (4,100 state law class members compared to 447 FLSA collective members "may constitute substantial predomination"), with Ervin v. OS Rest. Servs., Inc., 632 F.3d 971, 981 (7th Cir. 2011) (state law claims did not predominate in case with "30 participants in the FLSA collective action and potentially 180 to 250 people who might participate in any of the three Rule 23 classes"). Because "the state law claims essentially replicate the FLSA claims," the terms of proof are very similar. Lindsay, 448 F.3d at 424. In addition, the FLSA action was filed at the outset of this case rather than added to a more comprehensive state action. Accordingly, the state law claims do not predominate.
For these reasons, it is permissible and appropriate for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.
Before the court can preliminarily approve the proposed settlement, it first must also "determine whether to certify the class for settlement purposes." Hochstadt v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 708 F. Supp. 2d 95, 101 (D. Mass. 2010). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). "When a settlement class is proposed, it is incumbent on the district court to give heightened scrutiny to the requirements of Rule 23 in order to protect absent class members." In re Lupron Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 228 F.R.D. 75, 88 (D. Mass. 2005) (citing Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689, (1997) ). "To obtain class certification, the plaintiff must establish the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation and demonstrate that the action may be maintained under Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3)." Hochstadt, 708 F. Supp. 2d at 102 (citing Smilow v. Sw. Bell Mobile Sys., Inc., 323 F.3d 32, 38 (1st Cir. 2003) ). "This cautionary approach notwithstanding, the law favors class action settlements." In re Lupron, 228 F.R.D. at 88.
For the reasons discussed at the February 3, 2021 hearing, the court concludes for the purposes of preliminary approval that plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of numerosity, commonality, and typicality, and that the action may properly be maintained under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After considering plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum and supporting documents, the court also concludes that the named plaintiffs are adequate class representatives for the purposes of preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.
To be adequate, a class representative must, at minimum, have: (1) "the ability and incentive to represents the interests of the class vigorously," (2)"obtained adequate counsel," and (3) no "conflict between [his or her] claims and those asserted on behalf of the class." Ark. Teacher Ret. Sys. v. State St. Bank & Tr. Co., 404 F. Supp. 3d 486, 508 (D. Mass. 2018). Here, each named plaintiff was actively involved in the prosecution of his claims and spent at least thirty hours working with counsel on this case. See Declarations of Robenson Jean-Pierre, Jean Metelus, Bill McKee, and Michael Gary Fauntleroy, Supplemental Memorandum, Ex. 1 (Dk. No. 131-1) at 77-98 of 134. They are all represented by counsel who have successfully acted as class counsel in prior wage and hour actions and who engaged in substantial production and review of discovery in this case. See Affidavits of Sarah Schalman Bergen and Carolyn Hunt Cottrell (Dkt Nos. 121-2, 121-3). Named plaintiffs’ interests and those of the class also appear to be aligned.
Because the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appear to have been met, the court concludes that it will likely certify the class of the purposes of judgment.
With respect to the proposed settlement itself, "[a] district court can approve a class action settlement only if it is fair, adequate and reasonable." City P'ship Co. v. Atl. Acquisition Ltd. P'ship, 100 F.3d 1041, 1043 (1st Cir. 1996). The factors the court must ultimately consider include whether:
(A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class;
(B) the proposal was negotiated at arm's length;
(C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account:
(i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal;
(ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class-member claims;
(iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees, including timing of payment; and
(iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3) ; and
(D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). "If the parties negotiated at arm's length and conducted sufficient discovery, the district court must presume the settlement is reasonable." In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 588 F.3d 24, 32-33 (1st Cir. 2009).
The court concludes that it will likely approve the settlement under Rule 23(e)(2). Plaintiffs have negotiated a gross settlement award of $1,850,000. See Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval (Dkt No. 121) (the "Memorandum in Support") at 5. This award represents approximately 40% of defendant's projected total exposure if the class and collective were to prevail on their claims. See Supplemental Memorandum at 9-11. Plaintiffs’ counsel will seek one-third of this gross settlement award, or $616,667.00, as attorneys’ fees, but the court will have the discretion to award less. See Memorandum in Support at 26. The parties reached this settlement through mediation and arms-length negotiation after two years of difficult litigation, including discovery, and while facing the prospect of lengthy additional litigation if settlement had not been reached. See id. at 13. Under the proposed agreement, each class member will receive a minimum payment of $50.00 and will receive a pro rata portion of the settlement based on the weeks they worked for defendant and the value of their claims under the applicable state laws. See id. at 6. Considering the risk that the class might have received no recovery if this case proceeded to trial, the proposed settlement is likely to be found to be a fair, adequate, and reasonable resolution of this case.
In view of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The parties’ Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ;
2. The court grants approval to the terms and conditions contained in the Settlement Agreement as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act;
3. For settlement purposes, the court certifies the following Settlement Collective as an FLSA collective actions pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), pending final approval of the settlement:
All current and former Technicians who were employed by J&L Cable TV Services, Inc. between July 18, 2015 and August 28, 2020 who have opted in to Robenson Jean-Pierre, Jean Metelus, Bill McKee, and Michael Gary Fauntleroy individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. J&L Cable TV Services, Inc., Civil Action No 1:18-cv-11499, currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ("Settlement Collective Members").
4. For settlement purposes, the court preliminarily certifies each of the following Settlement Classes ("State Law Settlement Classes") as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and b(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pending final approval of the settlement:
• Massachusetts State Law Class : All individuals who worked for J&L Cable TV Services, Inc. as a Technician in Massachusetts between July 18, 2015 and August 28, 2020;
• New Hampshire State Law Class: All individuals who worked for J&L Cable TV Services, Inc. as a Technician in New Hampshire between July 18, 2015 and August 28, 2015;
• Maine State Law Class: All individuals who worked for J&L Cable TV Services, Inc. as a Technician in Maine between July 18, 2012 and August 28, 2020;
• Pennsylvania State Law Class: All individuals who worked for J&L Cable TV Services, Inc. as a Technician in Pennsylvania between July 18, 2015 and August 28, 2020.
5. Plaintiffs Robenson Jean-Pierre, Jean Metelus, Bill McKee, and Michael Gary Fauntleroy are preliminarily approved as Class Representatives of the respective State Law Settlement Classes and of the Collective;
6. Berger Montague PC and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky, LLP are preliminarily approved as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class and Collective;
7. The Settlement Administrator, Angeion, is preliminarily approved as Settlement Administrator.
8. Greater Boston Legal Services is preliminarily approved as the cy pres recipient of any monies remaining in the Settlement Fund;
9. The court approves the Notice of Settlement, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and finds that the proposed method of disseminating the Settlement Notice meets the requirements of due process and is the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and authorizes dissemination of the Notice to members of the Settlement Class; and
Class Counsel shall insert the required dates and other information in the blanks of the attached Notice.
10. The following schedule and procedures for completing the final approval process as set forth in the parties’ Settlement Agreement are hereby approved:
| Defendant to Provide Settlement Administrator and Class Counsel with Class Information | By May 24, 2021 |
| Notice Sent by Settlement Administrator | By May 31, 2021 |
| Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs | By July 16, 2021 |
| Deadline to Postmark Objections or Requests for Exclusion ("Notice Deadline") | By August 10, 2021 |
| Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval and Memorandum in Support | By August 17, 2021 |
| Final Approval Hearing by Videoconference | August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. |
The court may alter these deadlines for good cause shown. EXHIBIT 1
Jean-Pierre, et al., v. J&L Cable TV Services, Inc. , Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-11499 (D. Mass.)
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.
You received this Notice of Settlement ("Notice") either because you 1) previously completed an Opt-In Consent Form to join this case; or 2) you did not previously join this case but the records of J&L Cable TV Services, Inc. ("Defendant" or "J&L") show you performed work as a Technician for J&L in Massachusetts, New Hampshire or Pennsylvania sometime between July 18, 2015 and August 28, 2020 and/or in Maine sometime between July 18, 2012 and August 28, 2020. Because you fit this definition, you may be entitled to receive money from a Settlement in this case, as described below .
The capitalized terms in this Notice of Settlement have defined meanings that are set out in detail in the Settlement Agreement. To review a copy of the Settlement Agreement, please visit the Settlement website at [INSERT URL].
1. Why Should Yon Read This Notice?
This Notice explains your right to share in the monetary proceeds of this Settlement, exclude yourself ("opt out") of the Settlement, or object to the Settlement. If you object to the Settlement, you cannot opt out of the Settlement, and you will be bound by the terms of Settlement in the event the Court denies your objection.
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has preliminarily approved the Settlement as fair and reasonable. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on ______, 2021 at _______, before the Honorable District Judge Mark Wolf at the U.S Courthouse, Courtroom ___, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210.
2. What Is This Case About?
This lawsuit alleges that individuals who J&L employed as non-exempt employees and provided services, including, but not limited to, services such as installing cable, internet, television, alarm, security, and phone systems, in commercial and residential settings, were not compensated for all hours worked, were not paid minimum, straight time, or overtime wages, were not paid all wages due upon termination, and such Technicians’ expenses were not paid for by Defendant. This lawsuit seeks recovery of unpaid wages, compensation, statutory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. The claims in this lawsuit are brought under federal, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania law.
Defendant denies these allegations and contends that it has strong legal and factual defenses to these claims, but it recognizes the risks, distractions, and costs associated with litigation. Defendant contends that the wage and hour policies and practices at issue, including those regarding payment for time worked, and overtime pay are lawful and have been lawful throughout the relevant time period.
This Settlement is the result of good faith, arm's length negotiations between Plaintiffs and Defendant, through their respective attorneys. Both sides agree that in light of the risks and expenses associated with continued litigation, this Settlement is fair and appropriate under the circumstances, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class and Collective Members. This Settlement is a compromise and is not an admission of liability on the part of Defendant.
The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims or Defendant's defenses.
The Settlement Administrator has created a Settlement website, which can be accessed at [INSERT URL]. The Settlement website allows Settlement Class and Collective Members to view the Settlement Agreement, all papers filed by Class Counsel to obtain Court approval of the Settlement Agreement, and this Notice of Settlement (in generic form). The Settlement website also provides contact information for Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator.
3. What Are the Terms of the Settlement?
J&L has agreed to pay One Million Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,850,000) ("Gross Settlement Amount") . Deductions from this amount will be made for attorneys’ fees and costs for Class Counsel (see below), settlement administration costs (up to $34,000), and service awards in the amount - of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) in total to be split equally by Named Plaintiffs Robenson Jean-Pierre, Jean Metelus, Bill McKee and Michael Gary Fauntleroy for their service to the Settlement Class and Collective. After deductions of these amounts, what remains of the Gross Settlement Amount (the "Net Settlement Amount" ) will be available to pay monetary Settlement Awards.
The following persons will be eligible to receive a monetary award from the Net Settlement Amount: (1) Named Plaintiffs, (2) all individuals who filed an Opt-In Consent Form to join the case before [DATE] ("Collective Members "), and (3) all individuals who do not opt out of the Settlement Class and who worked for J&L as Technicians between July 18, 2015 and August 28, 2020 in the states of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania and between July 18, 2012 and August 28, 2020 in the State of Maine ("Settlement Class Members ").
4. How Much Can I Expect to Receive?
All Settlement Class and Collective Members will receive a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Amount based on the total number of Workweeks that the Settlement Class and Collective Member worked for J&L during the relevant period. Settlement Class and Collective Members shall receive a pro rata portion of the Net Settlement Amount as follows:
1. For each week during which the Settlement Class and Collective Members worked for J&L during the applicable time from July 18, 2015 for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania Class Members, and from July 18, 2012 for Maine Class Members, or three years prior to the Opt-In Date for Opt-In Plaintiffs, whichever is earliest, through August 28, 2020, he or she shall be eligible to receive a pro rata portion of the Net Settlement Amount based on the number of Workweeks the Settlement Class or Collective Member worked. Each Workweek will be equal to two (2) settlement shares. To reflect the increased value of state law claims in Maine and Massachusetts, each workweek will be equal to three (3) settlement shares.
2. The total number of settlement shares for all Settlement Class and Collective Members will be added together and the resulting sum will be divided into the Net Settlement Amount to reach a per share dollar figure. That figure will then be multiplied by each individual's number of settlement shares to determine his or her Settlement Award.
All Settlement Award determinations will be based on J&L's timekeeping, payroll, and/or HRIS records for Settlement Class and Collective members. According to records maintained by J&L, your total estimated settlement payment will be $ ___. This amount is an estimated amount, and your final settlement payment is expected to differ from this amount (i.e. , it could be higher or lower) and will be calculated as set forth above. You worked ____ Workweeks for J&L during the relevant period, as shown by company records.
If you dispute the number of Workweeks as shown on this Notice of Settlement, you may produce evidence to the Settlement Administrator establishing the dates you contend to have worked for J&L as a Technician. To do so, send a letter to the Settlement Administrator explaining the basis for your dispute and attach copies of the supporting evidence. Unless you present convincing evidence proving you worked more Workweeks than shown by J&L's records, your Settlement Award will be determined based on J&L's records. Any disputes must be postmarked by [INSERT DATE], and should be mailed to [INSERT SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESS]. The Settlement Administrator will notify you of the decision on the dispute.
For tax reporting purposes, Settlement Awards to Settlement Class and Collective Members will be allocated fifty percent (50%) as wages and fifty percent (50%) as nonwages. However, Settlement Awards to Maine and Massachusetts Class Members shall be allocated one-third (33.33%) as wages and the remainder as nonwages. None of the Parties or attorneys makes any representations concerning the tax consequences of this Settlement or your participation in it. You should consult with your own tax advisors concerning the tax consequences of the Settlement.
If you participate in the Settlement, you will have 180 days to cash the check that will be sent to you. If at the conclusion of the 180-day check void period, there are any uncashed checks, those monies will be paid to the Parties’ agreed upon cy pres recipient, Greater Boston Legal Services, subject to the Court's approval in the Final Approval Order, if the total residual amount is less than $50,000. If the total residual amount is $50,000 or greater, a second distribution will occur to those Settlement Class and Collective Members who cashed their check on a pro rata basis.
It is your responsibility to keep a current address on file with the Settlement Administrator to ensure receipt of your monetary Settlement Award. If you fail to keep your address current, you may not receive your Settlement Award.
5. What Are The Releases?
Upon Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class and Collective Members shall and hereby do release claims against the Releasees as follows:
Collective Members’ Released Claims. Settlement Collective Members release any and all Claims against Releasees through August 28, 2020 that were or could have been asserted under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. ("FLSA claims") based on the factual predicate alleged in the operative Complaint. As to other Settlement Class Members, only those who cash or deposit their Settlement Award check shall become Collective Members and release their FLSA claims against Releasees through August 28, 2020.
Massachusetts Settlement Class Members’ Released Claims. Massachusetts Class Members release any and all Claims against Releasees through August 28, 2020 that were or could have been asserted under Massachusetts law based on the factual predicate alleged in the operative Complaint including claims for the alleged failure to pay minimum, straight time, overtime wages or any other form of compensation, statutory penalties, and equitable and declaratory relief.
Maine Settlement Class Members’ Released Claims. Maine Class Members release any and all Claims against Releasees through August 28, 2020 that were asserted under Maine law based on the factual predicate alleged in the operative Complaint including claims for the alleged failure to pay minimum, straight time, overtime wages or any other form of compensation, statutory penalties, and equitable and declaratory relief.
New Hampshire Settlement Class Members’ Released Claims. New Hampshire Class Members release any and all Claims against Releasees through August 28, 2020 that were asserted under New Hampshire law based on the factual predicate alleged in the operative Complaint including claims for the alleged failure to pay minimum, straight time, overtime wages or any other form of compensation, statutory penalties, and equitable and declaratory relief.
Pennsylvania Settlement Class Members’ Released Claims. Pennsylvania Class Members release any and all Claims against Releasees through August 28, 2020 that were asserted under Pennsylvania law based on the factual predicate alleged in the operative Complaint including claims for the alleged failure to pay minimum, straight time, overtime wages or any other form of compensation, statutory penalties, and equitable and declaratory relief.
6. What Are My Rights?
• Do Nothing : If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely and validly opt-out, you will automatically become a part of the Settlement Class and Collective and receive your prorated Settlement Award, upon approval of the Court, and will be bound by the Settlement including its release provisions.
• Opt-Out : If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not wish to be bound by the Settlement, you must submit a written exclusion from the Settlement ("opt-out"), postmarked by [INSERT]. The written request for exclusion must contain a statement that indicates a desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, contain your full name, address, telephone number, and must be signed individually by you. No opt-out request may be made on behalf of a group. The opt-out request must be sent by mail to the Settlement Administrator at [INSERT SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESS]. The failure to submit a timely opt-out may be excused by the Court for good cause only. Any person who requests exclusion (opts out) of the settlement will
not be entitled to any Settlement Award and will not be bound by the Settlement Agreement or have any right to object, appeal or comment thereon .
• Object : If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to object to the Settlement, you must submit a written statement objecting to the Settlement. The statement must state the factual and legal grounds for your objection to the settlement. Your objection must state your full name, address, telephone number, and email address (if applicable), and must be signed by you. Any objection must be filed with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. You must also mail a copy of your objection to Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel, by [INSERT DATE] to the following addresses:
| Carolyn Cottrell | Frederick B. Finberg |
| SCHNEIDER WALLACE | Peter Bennett |
|---|---|
| COTTRELL KONECKY LLP | THE BENNETT LAW FIRM, P.A. |
| 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 | 75 Market Street, Suite 201 |
| Emeryville, CA 94608 | Portland, ME 04101 |
| Shoshana Savett | Attorneys for J&L Cable |
| BERGER MONTAGUE PC | 1818 Market Street |
| Suite 3600 | |
| Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 | |
| Class Counsel |
If you file a written objection, you may also, if you wish, appear at the Final Approval Hearing to discuss your objection with the Court and the parties to the Lawsuit. Your written objection must state whether you will attend the Final Approval Hearing, and your written notice of your intention to appear at the Final Approval Hearing must be filed with the Court and served upon Class Counsel and Defendant's counsel on or before the Notice Deadline. To be heard at the Final Approval Hearing you must also not opt out of the Settlement. If you wish to object to the Settlement but fail to return your timely written objection in the manner specified above, you shall be deemed to have waived any objection and shall be foreclosed from making any objection (whether by appeal or otherwise) to the Settlement. The postmark date of mailing to Class Counsel and Defendant's counsel shall be the exclusive means for determining that an objection is timely mailed to counsel. The failure to submit a timely objection may be excused by the Court for good cause only. Objections shall only be considered if the Settlement Class Member has not opted out of the Settlement.
You may also withdraw your objection in writing by mailing a withdrawal statement to the Court and counsel for the Parties postmarked no later than [INSERT DATE business days before final approval hearing] or orally at the Final Approval hearing, subject to the Court's approval. The Court may alter any of the deadlines above for good cause.
7. Can Defendant Retaliate Against Me for Participating in this Lawsuit?
No. Your decision as to whether or not to participate in this Lawsuit will in no way affect your work or employment with J&L or future work or employment with J&L. It is unlawful for J&L to take any adverse action against you as a result of your participation in this Lawsuit. In fact, J&L encourages you to participate in this Settlement.
8. Who Are the Attorneys Representing Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class?
Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class are represented by the following attorneys acting as Class Counsel:
Carolyn Cottrell
Ori Edelstein
Michelle Lim
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Stacy Savett
Shoshana Savett
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market St., Suite 3600
Philadelphia, Philadelphia 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3033
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
9. Should I get my own Lawyer?
You do not need to hire your own lawyer, because Class Counsel are working on your behalf. If you wish to make an appearance through your own lawyer, you may hire one, but you will be responsible for any payment for that lawyer's services. For example, you can ask your lawyer to appear in Court for you if you want someone other than Class Counsel to speak for you. If you hire your own lawyer, your lawyer must file an appearance in the action.
10. How Will the Attorneys for the Settlement Class Be Paid?
You do not have to pay the attorneys who represent the Settlement Class. Class Counsel will be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount of $1,850,000.00. The Settlement Agreement provides that Class Counsel will request attorneys’ fees of one-third (1/3) of $1,850,000 (i.e., $616,667.00) plus their out-of-pocket costs, not to exceed $50,000. Class Counsel will file a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs with the Court to make this request .. The amount of attorneys’ fees and costs awarded will be determined by the Court at the Final Approval Hearing.
11. Where can I get more information?
If you have questions about this Notice, or the Settlement, or if you did not receive this Notice in the mail and you believe that you are or may be a member of the Settlement, you should contact the Class Counsel.
This Notice is only a summary. Please review the full Settlement Agreement, which contains the complete terms of the proposed Settlement (which includes a release) on the Settlement Website, which can be accessed at [INSERT URL]. The Settlement Website includes the Settlement Agreement and other documents for this case. The Settlement Agreement is also available through Class Counsel and publicly accessible and on file with the Court.