Ohring v. UniSea Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided November 9, 2023·No. 2:21-cv-00359·Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 AMICHAI OHRING, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, 8 Plaintiff, C21-0359 TSZ 9 v. ORDER 10 UNISEA, INC., 11 Defendant. 12 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiff Amichai Ohring’s unopposed 13 motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, docket no. 52. Having considered all 14 papers filed in support of the motion, the Court enters the following Order. 15 Background 16 In this litigation, plaintiff asserted two claims: 17 1. A collective action claim pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act 18 (“FLSA) on behalf of “[e]very person who works or has worked as a seafood processing employee in the state of Alaska for UniSea, Inc. 19 during the period from March 16, 2018, to the date of judgment [and] who timely opt in to this action,” Compl. at ¶ 28 (docket no. 1); and 20 2. A class action claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) 21 and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act (“AWHA”) on behalf of “[e]very person who works or has worked as a seafood processing employee in the 22 state of Alaska for UniSea, Inc. during the period from March 16, 2019, 1 to the date of judgment [and] who does not timely opt out of this action,” Compl. at ¶ 32 (docket no. 1). 2 By Order entered July 13, 2021, docket no. 34, the Court denied defendant UniSea, Inc.’s 3 motion to compel arbitration. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for 4 the Ninth Circuit, however, reversed and remanded with instructions to stay this matter 5 and require the parties to arbitrate their dispute. See Mem. Dispo. (docket no. 45); 6 Mandate (docket no. 48). The Court complied with the Ninth Circuit’s directive, see 7 Minute Order (docket no. 49), but in December 2022, the parties reported that, in lieu of 8 arbitration, they had engaged in successful settlement negotiations, see Joint Status 9 Report (docket no. 50). The motion now pending before the Court seeks preliminary 10 approval of the parties’ settlement. 11 Upon review of the motion papers, the Court had several questions concerning the 12 terms of the settlement (including about the average amount and range of anticipated 13 payments from the net settlement fund), and the parties were asked to provide further 14 explanation. See Minute Order (docket no. 57). In a Joint Status Report (“JSR”) and 15 supporting declarations, docket nos. 58–61, the parties offered additional data regarding 16 inter alia the proposed distribution of net settlement proceeds. The parties also 17 acknowledged that they had failed to provide notices of the proposed settlement to the 18 appropriate state and federal officials as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715. See JSR at 2, § D 19 (docket no. 58). The parties served the requisite notices in early May 2023, see Omata 20 Decl. at ¶¶ 3–5 (docket no. 61), and the 90-day waiting period has now elapsed without 21 any objection having been filed by any Attorney General to whom notice was mailed 22 (and perhaps emailed or faxed), see Ex. 1 to Omata Decl. (docket no. 61) (indicating that 1 § 1715 notices were sent to the Attorneys General of the United States and 39 states, 2 including Alaska and Washington).

3 After studying the parties’ May 2023 submissions, and after considering relevant 4 authorities that the parties had failed to cite, the Court concluded that the proposed 5 settlement could not be approved because it (i) failed to allocate between the FLSA and 6 AWHA claims; (ii) incorporated a deficient opt-in procedure for the FLSA claim; 7 (iii) improperly linked the decision whether to opt-in to the FLSA collective action to the 8 pro rata recovery of settlement proceeds relating to the AWHA claim; and (iv) did not

9 propose the best practicable method of serving notice on the putative FLSA plaintiffs and 10 members of the AWHA-related class. See Minute Order at ¶¶ 2(a)–(c) & (f) (docket 11 no. 62). The parties have since re-negotiated the terms of their settlement, and submitted 12 a Joint Status Report, docket no. 65, along with an amended Joint Settlement Agreement 13 and Release (“Settlement Agreement”), Ex. 1 to Dharap Decl., docket no. 66-1, a revised

14 proposed notice, Ex. 2 to Dharap Decl. (docket no. 66-2), and proposed forms to be 15 completed, if appropriate, by collective action participants and/or putative class members, 16 Exs. 3 & 4 to Dharap Decl. (docket nos. 66-3 & 66-4). After reviewing these materials, 17 the Court posed certain questions about the parties’ notice plan. See Minute Order at ¶ 1 18 (docket no. 67). The parties responded in a Joint Status Report, docket no. 68, and this

19 matter is now ready for the Court’s consideration. 20 Discussion 21 During re-negotiations, the amount of the proposed gross settlement ($600,000) 22 did not change. See Settlement Agreement at ¶ 20; see also Minute Order at ¶ 2(d) 1 (docket no. 62). And, the parties still expect (i) proposed class counsel to seek up to 30% 2 of the gross ($180,000) for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses not to exceed $5,000,

3 and (ii) plaintiff to request a service award (capped at $5,000). Settlement Agreement at 4 ¶ 20. The projected settlement administration costs, however, have increased to a 5 maximum of $27,950, id., resulting in a projected net settlement fund of $382,050. 6 Allocation: In response to the Court’s concerns, the parties now propose to 7 allocate ninety percent (90%) of the net proceeds ($343,845) to the settlement of the 8 AWHA claim and ten percent (10%) of the net amount ($38,205) to the settlement of the

9 FLSA claim.1 See id. This apportionment is based on the following analysis. For the 10 period from March 16, 2019,2 to November 17, 2021,3 the AWHA and FLSA claims 11 overlap; both claims are premised on the failure to pay wages for time spent donning and 12 doffing necessary gear. With respect to the preceding year, i.e., from March 16, 2018, to 13 March 16, 2019, the FLSA claim might authorize an additional recovery, but only upon a

14 showing that UniSea, Inc. (“UniSea”) engaged in a willful violation of the FLSA. See 29 15

16 1 The amount apportioned to the AWHA claim would be shared pro rata among as many as 1,525 17 individuals, resulting in an average payment of $225.47 per person. See Prop. Notice at 3, Ex. 2 to Dharap Decl. (docket no. 66-2). The number of putative FLSA plaintiffs is 1,845, and if all of them opted in to the collective action, the average payment would be roughly $20.71 per person 18 for the FLSA component of the settlement. Id. 19 2 This litigation commenced with the filing of the operative pleading on March 16, 2021, and the AWHA claim has a two-year limitations period. See Peterson v. Alaska Commc’ns Sys. Grp., 20 Inc., No. 12-cv-90, 2017 WL 11675157, at *1 & n.8 (D. Alaska Sept. 7, 2017); see also Alaska Stat. § 23.10.130. 21 3 November 17, 2021, is the date on which UniSea, Inc. relocated its time-keeping equipment to 22 the locker rooms so that workers could “clock in” where they donned and doffed their gear. See Pl.’s Mot. at 3–4 (docket no. 52). 1 U.S.C. § 255(a) (indicating that FLSA claims have a two-year limitations period unless 2 the cause of action arose from a willful violation, in which event, it must be asserted

3 within three years after it accrued). In light of UniSea’s curative action of relocating its 4 time-keeping equipment to employee locker rooms, which was taken within months after 5 this litigation began, Class Counsel has opined that plaintiff would be unlikely to prevail 6 on the issue of willfulness. See JSR at 2–3 (docket no. 65).

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

Ohring v. UniSea Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Ohring v. UniSea Inc (Ohring v. UniSea Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daniel Campbell v. City of Los Angeles
903 F.3d 1090 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)