Allicks v. Omni Specialty Packaging, LLC <font color="red"> Case Consolidated with 20-cv-069, 20-cv-083 and 20-cv-279-LMC. ALL PLEADINGS TO BE DOCKETED IN THIS CASE. </font>

District Court, W.D. Missouri·Decided May 28, 2021·No. 4:19-cv-01038·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

ELLEN ALLICKS d/b/a ALLICKS ) EXCAVATING, ) ROGER BIAS, ) ARNO GRAVES, ) DAVID GUEST, ) SHAWN HORNBECK, ) LARRY MUHS, ) RON NASH, ) BRIAN NELMS, ) WAYNE RUPE, ) ADAM SEVY, ) ANTHONY SHAW, ) RUSTY SHAW, ) TIM SULLIVAN, ) ROBERT THIRY, ) TODD VOHS, and ) ROBERT WITHER, ) on behalf of themselves ) and others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. 4:19-cv-01038 v. ) ) OMNI SPECIALTY PACKAGING, LLC, ) ) O’REILLY AUTOMOTIVE ) STORES, INC. d/b/a ) O’REILLY AUTO PARTS, ) ) and ) ) OZARK AUTOMOTIVE ) DISTRIBUTORS, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT WHEREAS, by order dated November 6, 2020, this Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement between the parties in the above-captioned action (the “Action”). WHEREAS, the Court also provisionally certified a Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, approved the procedure for giving notice and forms of notice, and set a final fairness hearing to take place on May 27, 2021. On that date, the Court held the duly noticed final fairness hearing to consider: (1) whether the terms and conditions of the Amended Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) are fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether a judgment should be entered dismissing with prejudice the claims of the named Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members against Defendants, as set forth in the Complaint; and (3) Class Counsel’s motion for approval of attorney’s fees, expenses, and Class Representative incentive awards. WHEREAS, the Court considered all matters submitted to it at the hearing and otherwise, and it appears that notice substantially in the form approved by the Court was given in the manner that the Court ordered. WHEREAS, the settlement was the result of extensive arms-length negotiations between counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants. Counsel for the parties are highly experienced in this type of litigation, with full knowledge of the risks inherent in this Action. The extent of legal research as to the sufficiency of the claims and class certification, independent investigations by counsel for the parties, and the factual record compiled, suffices to enable the parties to make an informed decision as to the fairness and adequacy of the settlement. WHEREAS, the Court has determined that the proposed settlement of the claims of the Settlement Class Members against Defendants, as well as the release of Defendants and the Released Parties (as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement And Release), the significant relief provided to the Settlement Class Members in the form of monetary payments to Settlement Class Members as described in the Settlement Agreement, and the award of attorneys’ fees and expenses requested, and the incentive awards requested, are fair, reasonable and adequate. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Settlement Agreement, including the exhibits thereto, is expressly incorporated by reference into this Final Order and Judgment and made a part hereof for all purposes. Except where otherwise noted, all capitalized terms used in this Final Order and Judgment shall have the meanings set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Parties and all Settlement Class Members, and has subject-matter jurisdiction over this Action, including, without limitation, jurisdiction to approve the proposed settlement, to grant final certification of the Settlement Class, to settle and release all claims arising out of the transactions alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint in the Action, and to dismiss this Action on the merits and with prejudice. 3. The Court finds, for settlement purposes only and conditioned upon the entry of this Final Order and Judgment and upon the occurrence of the Effective Date, that the requirements for a class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied, for settlement purposes, in that: (a) the number of Settlement Class Members is so numerous that joinder of all members thereof is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class; (c) the claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class they seek to represent for purposes of settlement; (d) the Plaintiffs have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class and will continue to do so, and the Plaintiffs have retained experienced counsel to represent them; (e) for purposes of settlement, the questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class Members predominate over any questions affecting any individual Settlement Class Member; and (f) for purposes of settlement, a class action is superior to the other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The Court also concludes that, because this Action is being settled rather than litigated, the Court need not consider manageability issues that might be presented by the trial of a nationwide class action involving the issues in this case. See Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997). In making these findings, the Court has considered, among other factors: (i) the interests of Settlement Class Members in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (ii) the impracticability or inefficiency of prosecuting or defending separate actions; (iii) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning these claims already commenced; and (iv) the desirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in a particular forum. 4. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court hereby finally certifies this Action for settlement purposes as a class action on behalf of the “Settlement Class,” as defined in the Settlement Agreement, namely:

[A]ll persons and other entities who purchased O’Reilly 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid during the Class Period, as defined [in the Settlement Agreement], in the United States, excluding purchases made in Missouri, and also excluding purchases made for resale.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allicks v. Omni Specialty Packaging, LLC <font color="red"> Case Consolidated with 20-cv-069, 20-cv-083 and 20-cv-279-LMC. ALL PLEADINGS TO BE DOCKETED IN THIS CASE. </font>, (W.D. Mo. 2021).

Allicks v. Omni Specialty Packaging, LLC <font color="red"> Case Consolidated with 20-cv-069, 20-cv-083 and 20-cv-279-LMC. ALL PLEADINGS TO BE DOCKETED IN THIS CASE. </font> (Allicks v. Omni Specialty Packaging, LLC <font color="red"> Case Consolidated with 20-cv-069, 20-cv-083 and 20-cv-279-LMC. ALL PLEADINGS TO BE DOCKETED IN THIS CASE. </font>) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 1997)