Janicijevic v. Classica Cruise Operator Ltd

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedJanuary 7, 2021
Docket1:20-cv-23223
StatusUnknown

This text of Janicijevic v. Classica Cruise Operator Ltd (Janicijevic v. Classica Cruise Operator Ltd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Janicijevic v. Classica Cruise Operator Ltd, (S.D. Fla. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

DRAGAN JANICIJEVIC, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated crew members working aboard BAHAMAS PARADISE CRUISE LINE vessels

Plaintiff,

v.

CLASSICA CRUISE OPERATOR, LTD. and PARADISE CRUISE LINE OPERATOR LTD.

Defendants. ________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES, DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF CLASS NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class, ECF No. [37] (“Motion”). Upon review and consideration of the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement of Settling Plaintiff1 Dragan Janicijevic, on behalf of himself and all Settlement Class Members, and Defendants Classica Cruise Operator Ltd. and Paradise Cruise Line Operator Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”), including the Parties’ Amended Stipulation and Settlement Agreement dated December 17, 2020 and all exhibits thereto, and the Court being fully advised, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [37], is GRANTED as follows:

1 Unless otherwise indicated, capitalized terms used throughout this Order shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement, ECF No. [37-4]. 1. Settlement. Settling Plaintiff and Defendants have negotiated a proposed settlement of Settling Plaintiff’s claims in this action, individually and on behalf of a class of seafarer- employees, described below as the Settlement Class, to avoid the expense, uncertainties, and burden of protracted litigation, and to resolve the Released Claims against Defendants and any and all of their present or former predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, joint ventures, and entities in which the Cruise Defendants have a controlling interest, and any and all of their officers,

directors, partners, members, principals, insurers, insureds, employees, shareholders, attorneys, servants, assigns, representatives and agents (specifically limited to those representatives and agents involved with or related to the alleged conduct in this action). 2. Review. The Court has carefully reviewed the Settlement Agreement, as well as the files, records, and proceedings to date in this matter. The terms and conditions in the Settlement Agreement are incorporated herein as though fully set forth in this Order. 3. Preliminary Approval. The Settlement Agreement entered into by and among the Settling Plaintiff and Defendants was negotiated at arm’s length and is approved on a preliminary basis as fair, reasonable, and adequate and within the range of possible approval. The Court finds that providing notice to the Settlement Class Members is justified by the showing that the Court

likely will be able to approve the proposed Settlement under Rule 23(e)(2). 4. Settlement Class Relief. The proposed Claim Settlement Relief to Settlement Class Members, as identified in Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement, is approved on a preliminary basis as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Settlement Class shall consist of: All seafarer-employees who were physically present on the Grand Celebration for at least one day anytime between March 18, 2020 until August 20, 2020 and were (1) terminated such that severance is due under their employment contracts and/or (2) were employed and performed a designated job at Defendants’ request. “Seafarer- employees” shall not include deck and engine employees and independent contractors, Cruise Defendants’ corporate officers or corporate directors. 5. Preliminary Certification of Settlement Class. The Court makes the following determinations as to certification of the Settlement Class: (a) The Court preliminarily certifies the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement only, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3). (b) The Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. “[G]enerally, where the potential number of plaintiffs is likely to exceed forty

members, the Rule 23(a) numerosity requirement will be met.” Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 280 F.R.D. 665, 671-72 (S.D. Fla. 2012); see, e.g., Anderson v. Bank of S., N.A., 118 F.R.D. 136, 145 (M.D. Fla. 1987) (“[T]he size of the class and geographic location of the would-be class members are relevant to any consideration of practicality.”). As alleged, there are hundreds of Settlement Class Members. Specifically, there are 276 Class Members who were terminated and are entitled to severance, and there are 6 Class Members who continued to perform some work for Defendants during the class period. See ECF No. [37] at 4. (c) There are questions of law or fact common to the members of the Settlement Class. The Settlement Class Members’ claims raise common issues as to whether Defendants’ conduct breached the contracts Defendants had with Settlement Class Members.

(d) The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the other members of the Settlement Class. Typicality and commonality are related, with commonality referring to “the group characteristics of the class as a whole” and typicality focusing on the named plaintiff’s claims in relation to the class. In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 220 F.R.D. 672 (S.D. Fla. 2004). Plaintiff’s claims in this case arise from the same alleged course of conduct and are based on the same legal theories as those brought on behalf of the proposed class. Therefore, the typicality prong is met. (e) Plaintiff is capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the members of the Settlement Class, in connection with the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the class and plaintiff’s counsel is qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation. (f) Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Settlement Class. Settlement Class Members’ claims arise out of Defendants’ alleged uniform conduct and seek remedy of “common legal grievances” as a result of

the conduct in question. (g) The Settlement Class is ascertainable. Defendants have identified each of the Settlement Class Members. (h) Resolution of the claims in this Litigation by way of a worldwide settlement is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient resolution of the claims of the Settlement Class. Individual lawsuits by aggrieved class seafarer-employees would involve largely the same evidence, and waste judicial resources. (i) The Court expressly reserves its prerogative to revisit class certification pending further developments in this litigation. 6. Designation of Class Representative. Settling Plaintiff Dragan Janicijevic is

designated as the representative of the Settlement Class for the sole purpose of seeking a settlement of the claims against Defendants in the Litigation. 7. Designation of Class Counsel. The law firms of Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. and The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC are hereby designated as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class for the sole purpose of the Settlement. 8. Final Approval Hearing. A hearing regarding final approval of the Settlement (“Final Approval Hearing”) will be held at 9:00 a.m.

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

Related

Charles T. Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC
975 F.3d 1244 (Eleventh Circuit, 2020)
In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation
220 F.R.D. 672 (S.D. Florida, 2004)
Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
280 F.R.D. 665 (S.D. Florida, 2012)
Anderson v. Bank of South, N.A.
118 F.R.D. 136 (M.D. Florida, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Janicijevic v. Classica Cruise Operator Ltd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/janicijevic-v-classica-cruise-operator-ltd-flsd-2021.