JOLLY v. CHI

No. 4:16-cv-9-DPM.

ALISON JOLLY and MATTHEW JOHNSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LULU CHI; JACOB CHI; and JANSEN CHI, Defendants

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Labor / Mgmnt. Relations
Nature of Suit: 710 Labor: Fair Standards
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Alison Jolly, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Sanford , Sanford Law Firm.

Alison Jolly, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Rauls , Sanford Law Firm.

Matthew Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Sanford , Sanford Law Firm & Stephen Rauls , Sanford Law Firm.

Lulu Chi, Defendant, represented by Allen C. Dobson , Baxter, Jewell & Dobson, P.A. & Shelley L. Fleisch-Djurica , Baxter, Jewell & Dobson, P.A..

Jacob Chi, Defendant, represented by Allen C. Dobson , Baxter, Jewell & Dobson, P.A. & Shelley L. Fleisch-Djurica , Baxter, Jewell & Dobson, P.A..

Jansen Chi, Defendant, represented by Allen C. Dobson , Baxter, Jewell & Dobson, P.A. & Shelley L. Fleisch-Djurica , Baxter, Jewell & Dobson, P.A..


ORDER

D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge.

1. The Court appreciates the parties' continuing efforts to resolve their differences. The joint motion to approve their proposed settlement agreement and related papers, No 49 & 51, is granted as modified.

2. The proposed deal (with one change) is fair, reasonable, and adequate considering all the material circumstances. In re Flight Transportation Corp. Securities Litigation, 730 F.2d 1128, 1135 (8th Cir. 1984) (Richard S. Arnold, J.). Jolly and Johnson will get what they believe they're owed; the lawyers will get a reasonable fee for their work on the case; and any other former employee who opts in will get paid, with a reasonable slice going to the lawyers. The change: the Court does not approve Article 7 on confidentiality, and it is severed from the agreement, which the proposal allows to be done with unenforceable terms. No 49-1 at ¶ 8.3. The public, in general, and potential members of the settlement group, in particular, are entitled to know all the terms of the deal. No 70 in Delock v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., No. 4:11-cv-520-DPM.

3. Two loose ends.

First, Jolly and Johnson provided their lawyers' bill to the Court for in-chambers review rather than filing it under seal. No 38. The Court has relied on the bill in evaluating the reasonableness of the fee part of the proposed deal. So the bill needs to be in the record. The Court will have the Clerk file it under seal.

Second, when the parties file notice of consummation in a couple of weeks, the Court will dismiss with prejudice (as requested) but retain jurisdiction until 1December2017 to resolve any issues that may arise during administration of the settlement group. The parties should file a joint status report, including a sealed addendum listing opt-ins and payments, by 15 November 2017.

So Ordered.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases