Demons v. United States

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedApril 27, 2017
Docket13-779
StatusPublished

This text of Demons v. United States (Demons v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Demons v. United States, (uscfc 2017).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Consolidated Nos. 13-779 C and 13-1024 C Filed: April 27, 2017

************************************* * CILICIA A. DEMONS, et al., on behalf of * * States*Court of Federal Rule of the United themselves and all others similarly situated, * * Claims (“RCFC”) 23(e) (Settlement, * * Voluntary Dismissal, or Compromise). and * * WALTER H. GARCIA, * CRYSTAL McCOURT, on behalf of * * * themselves and all others similarly situated, * * Plaintiffs, * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * ************************************* Ira M. Lechner, Washington, D.C., Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Hillary A. Stern, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Counsel for the Government.

FINAL MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF PREMIUM PAY DUE TO CERTAIN VETERANS HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES

BRADEN, Chief Judge.

On March 8, 2017, Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion For Settlement Final Approval was filed, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). Dkt. No. 44.

On October 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an initial Class Action Complaint, alleging that, as of July 1, 2012, certain Veterans Health Care Administration (“VA”) employees, and those similarly situated, were deprived of “regular and customary Saturday premium pay while on authorized and accrued leave [with pay],” to which they were entitled, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7453 or § 7454. Dkt. No. 1. On December 26, 2013, another group of Plaintiffs filed an initial Class Action Complaint alleging that, as of July 1, 2012, a different group of VA employees, and those similarly situated, were deprived of “regular and customary night and/or Saturday premium pay while on authorized and accrued leave [with pay],” to which they were entitled, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7453 or § 7454. Dkt. No. 6.

On December 15, 2014, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion And Order granting class certification. See DeMons v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 345 (2014) (“DeMons”). On April 9, 2015, the court also issued a Memorandum Opinion And Order granting class certification. See Garcia v. United States, No. 13-1024, 2015 U.S. Claims LEXIS 399 (2015) (“Garcia”).

On February 19, 2016, the court granted a joint motion to consolidate both DeMons and Garcia. Dkt. No. 26. On May 20, 2016, the court re-certified an opt-in class in the consolidated case for two sub-classes and approved an amended Notice. Dkt. No. 34.

Thereafter, settlement discussions took place. On March 8, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion For Approval Of Class Action Settlement Agreement, pursuant to RFCF 23(e) (the “Settlement Agreement”). ECF No. 44. The Settlement Agreement, attached hereto, requires the Government to pay $6,568,366.51, on a proportional divided basis, including to eligible opt- in Plaintiffs, as determined by the Class Action Administrator, but after payment of: employee withholding taxes; employer taxes; fees and expenses incurred by the Class Action Administrator; and attorneys’ fees and expenses. On March 8, 2017, as amended on April 18, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion For Attorneys’ Fees, Nontaxable Costs, And Expenses Of Administration From The Class Settlement Fund. Dkt. Nos. 44, 47. That motion requests approval for payment of: $240,074.87 to the Class Action Administrator, Epiq Systems, Inc., for fees and expenses; $1,711,877.07 for attorneys’ fees; and $26,814.44 for expenses, incurred by Class Counsel. Dkt. Nos. 44, 47.

On March 9, 2017, the court issued the proposed Notice Of Settlement and scheduled a Fairness Hearing. Dkt. No. 45. No objections were filed by the September 7, 2017 postmarking deadline.

On April 20, 2017, the court held a Fairness Hearing, pursuant to RCFC 23(e)(2). See Berkley v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 675, 681 (2004) (holding that a settlement must be “fair, reasonable and adequate.”). At that hearing and thereafter, the court has considered the following factors, i.e.: (1) the relative strengths of Plaintiffs’ case in comparison to the proposed settlement; (2) the recommendation of the counsel for the class regarding the proposed settlement, taking into account the adequacy of class counsels’ representation of the class; (3) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement, taking into account the adequacy of notice to the class members of the settlement terms; (4) the fairness of the settlement to the entire class; and (5) the fairness of the provision for attorney fees. See Sabo v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 619, 627 (2011); see also Dauphin Island Property Owners Ass’n v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 95, 102–03 (2009).

In considering these factors, the court has found that: (1) the Settlement Agreement will result in a gross payment to the qualified claimants of 100% of the amount of unpaid accrued and accumulated back pay, subject to employee withholding taxes, employer taxes, fees and expenses

2 incurred by the Class Action Administrator, and attorney fees and expenses incurred by Class Action Counsel; (2) the Settlement Agreement was reached after the VA provided the parties with the names of eligible recipients and estimated amounts due, and arm’s-length negotiations between counsel; (3) no class members objected to the Settlement Agreement, after receiving notification of its terms; (4) individual recoveries will be calculated uniformly and proportionately distributed, by the Class Action Administrator; and (5) the contingency fee arrangement that Class Counsel negotiated with Plaintiffs and each member of the class who filed a timely claim, i.e., receipt of 30% of the amount of the back pay and interest portion of the $6,568,366.51 Settlement Fund is a typical arrangement.

For these reasons, the court has determined that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ March 8, 2017 Unopposed Motion For Settlement Final Approval and Unopposed Motion For Attorneys’ Fees, Nontaxable Costs, And Expenses Of Administration, as amended on April 18, 2017, are granted.

The clerk is authorized to enter judgment in accord with the Settlement Agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Susan G. Braden SUSAN G. BRADEN, Chief Judge.

3 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

CILICIA A. DeMONS, et al., No. 13-779C WALTER H. GARCIA, et al., No. 13-1024C on behalf of themselves and all others Judge Susan G. Braden similarly situated, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Plaintiffs, v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

For the purpose of settling this action without any further judicial proceedings, and

without there being any trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law regarding this action, and

without constituting an admission of liability upon the part of either party, the parties hereby

stipulate as follows:

1. On October 8, 2013, plaintiffs in the DeMons case, Fed. Cl. No. 13-779, filed their

initial "Class Action Complaint for Money Damages." The proposed class consists of civil

service employees of the VA, excluding "physician[s], dentist[s], or nurse[s] in the Veterans

Health Administration (VHA) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)” in positions listed

in amended attachment A to the complaint. Attachment 1.

2. Plaintiffs alleged that they were regularly scheduled to work on Saturdays, and

therefore, entitled to receive "additional pay" pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7453 or 7454 when

performing such work.

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

Related

Demons v. United States
119 Fed. Cl. 345 (Federal Claims, 2014)
Berkley v. United States
59 Fed. Cl. 675 (Federal Claims, 2004)
Dauphin Island Property Owners Ass'n v. United States
90 Fed. Cl. 95 (Federal Claims, 2009)
Sabo v. United States
102 Fed. Cl. 619 (Federal Claims, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Demons v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demons-v-united-states-uscfc-2017.