Quatinetz v. Optio Solutions LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 24, 2021
Docket7:19-cv-08576
StatusUnknown

This text of Quatinetz v. Optio Solutions LLC (Quatinetz v. Optio Solutions LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Quatinetz v. Optio Solutions LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------x PAUL QUATINETZ, individually and on behalf of a class,

Plaintiff,

- against - No. 19-CV-8576 (CS)

ECO SHIELD PEST CONTROL NEW YORK

CITY, LLC, and OPTIO SOLUTIONS LLC,

Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------x

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

WHEREAS, this Court has been advised that the parties to this action, Paul Quatinetz (“Plaintiff” or “Class Representative”), and Eco Shield Pest Control New York City, LLC (“Eco Shield”) and Optio Solutions LLC (“Optio”) (Eco Shield and Optio, when used collectively, are hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”), through their respective counsel, have agreed, subject to Court approval following notice to the Class Members and a hearing, to settle the above- captioned lawsuit (“Lawsuit”) upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, (Doc. 33-2 (“Gentile Decl.”) Ex. A (“Settlement Agreement”)), and the Court deeming that the definitions set forth in the Settlement Agreement are hereby incorporated by reference herein (with capitalized terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement); NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the Settlement Agreement and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, and it appearing to this Court that, upon preliminary examination, the proposed settlement appears fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that a hearing should and will be held on July 16, 2021 at 3:30 p.m., after notice to the Class Members, to confirm that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to determine whether a Final Order and Judgment should be entered in this Lawsuit: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Lawsuit and over all settling parties hereto. In compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, and 1711-1715, Defendants, through the Settlement Administrator defined below, will cause to be served written notice of the proposed class settlement on the United States Attorney General and the Attorneys General of each state in which any Class Member resides. The Class is defined as: (a) all individuals (b) with a New York address (c) from whom Defendants attempted to collect and/or asserted a right to collect, a collection fee in addition to any amount Eco Shield claimed such individual owed them (d) from September 16, 2016 through September 16, 2019. Defendants have identified a total of 472 potential Class Members. The Court hereby appoints Paul Quatinetz as the Class Representative and appoints Ryan Gentile, Esq. of Law Offices of Gus Michael Farinella, P.C. and Shimshon Wexler, Esq. of S. Wexler, LLC as Class Counsel. The Court preliminarily finds that the settlement of the Lawsuit, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Class Members, especially in light of the benefits to the Class Members; the complexity, expense, and probable duration of further litigation; the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery engaged in by the parties; the risk of establishing liability and damages; the risk of maintaining the class action through trial; the possible recovery and all the attendant risk of litigation; and the opinions of Class Counsel. See City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir.1974), abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000). A third-party settlement administrator acceptable to the parties will administer the settlement and notification to Class Members. The Settlement Administrator will be responsible

for mailing the approved class action notice and settlement checks to the Class Members. All reasonable costs of notice and administration will be paid by Defendants separate and apart from the Settlement Fund. Upon the recommendation of the parties, the Court appoints the following administrator: Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions. The Court approves the form and substance of the written notice of the class action settlement attached as Exhibit A to Docket Entry 35. The proposed form and method for notifying the Class Members of the settlement and its terms and conditions meet the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and due process, constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled to the notice. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173 (1974); In re Merrill Lynch Tyco

Research Sec. Litig., 249 F.R.D. 124, 132-33 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). The Court finds that the proposed notices are clearly designed to advise the Class Members of their rights. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Administrator will mail the notice to the Class Members as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 21 days after the Court’s entry of this order, i.e., no later than April 14, 2021. The Settlement Administrator will confirm, and if necessary, update the addresses for the Class Members through standard methodology that the Settlement Administrator currently uses to update addresses. Any Class Member who desires to be excluded from the Class must send a written request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator with a postmark date no later than 75 days after the Court’s entry of this order, i.e., no later than June 7, 2021. To be effective, the written request for exclusion must state the Class Member’s full name, address telephone number, and email address (if available), along with a statement that the Class Member wishes to be excluded, and must be signed by the Class Member. Any Class Member who submits a valid and timely

request for exclusion will not be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Any Class Member who fails to submit a valid and timely request for exclusion will be considered a Settlement Class Member and will be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Any Class Member who intends to object to the fairness of this settlement must file a written objection with the Court within 75 days after the Court’s entry of this Order, i.e., no later than June 7, 2021. Further, any such Class Member must, within the same time period, provide a copy of the written objection to Class Counsel, attention: Ryan Gentile, Law Offices of Gus Michael Farinella, PC, 110 Jericho Turnpike – Suite 100 Floral Park, NY 11001 and Shimshon Wexler, S, Wexler, LLC, 2244 Henderson Mill Road, Suite 108 Atlanta, GA 30345; and Counsel for Eco Shield, Aaron Lloyd of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 2375 E. Camelback Road – Suite 700

Phoenix, AZ 85016 and Becky Leigh Caruso of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 500 Campus Drive, Suite 400, Florham Park, NJ 07932; and counsel for Optio, Brendan H. Little of Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP, 50 Fountain Plaza – Suite 1700 Buffalo, NY 14202. To be effective, a notice of intent to object to the Settlement must:

(a) Contain a heading which includes the name of the case and case number;

(b) Provide the name, address, telephone number, and email address (if available) of the Class Member filing the objection;

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Quatinetz v. Optio Solutions LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quatinetz-v-optio-solutions-llc-nysd-2021.