Demons v. United States

131 Fed. Cl. 514, 2017 U.S. Claims LEXIS 402, 2017 WL 1505962
United States Court of Federal Claims·Decided April 27, 2017·No. Consolidated 13-779 C 13-1024 C·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Rule of the United States Court of Federal Claims Voluntary (“RCFC Dismissal,”) 23(e) or (Settlement, Compromise).

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 *515 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, ie.: (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 Dawphin 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 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 *516 between counsel; (8) 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, ia, 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.

Attachment

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

CILICIA A. DeMONS, et al, WALTER H. GARCIA, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 13-779C

No. 13-1024C

Judge Susan G. Braden

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 ease, 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.

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

Demons v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 514, 2017 U.S. Claims LEXIS 402, 2017 WL 1505962 (uscfc 2017).

131 Fed. Cl. 514 (Demons v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mercier v. United States
Federal Claims, 2021