Buy This Entire Record For
Woods v. Caremark PHC, L.L.C.
United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
May 31, 2019
TIMOTHY WOODS and KIMBERLY GIBSON, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
CAREMARK PHC, L.L.C. d/b/a CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION and CAREMARK, L.L.C., Defendants.
ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION CLAIMS, APPROVING FORMS OF
CLASS NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS AND NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT TO
OPT-IN PLAINTIFFS, APPOINTING SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR, AND
SCHEDULING HEARING FOR FINAL APPROVAL
STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Timothy Woods and Kimberly Gibson (herein “Class
Representatives”) have requested that the Court enter
an order preliminary approving the settlement of this
litigation as stated in the Class and Collective Action
Settlement Agreement (“Settlement” or
“Settlement Agreement”), which, together with the
exhibits attached thereto, sets forth the terms and
conditions for a proposed settlement and dismissal of the
litigation. (Doc. # 261). Defendants do not oppose
preliminary approval of the Settlement.
having read and considered the Settlement Agreement, the
exhibits attached to it, and the briefing submitted in
support of preliminary approval of the Settlement, the Court
preliminarily approves the Parties' Settlement as fair,
reasonable and adequate and orders as follows:
1. The Court finds that notice of the Settlement to the Class
Members is justified because the Parties have shown that the
Court will likely be able to approve the Settlement Agreement
under Rule 23(e)(2) and will likely be able to certify the
Settlement Classes for purposes of judgment, since the
Classes were already certified during the course of the
2. The Court finds that it will likely be able to certify the
FLSA Settlement Class and Rule 23 Class as defined in the
3. The Court specifically finds that, for the purposes of
Settlement only, with regard to the Rule 23 Class under Rule
23, (i) the Class is so numerous that joinder is
impracticable; (ii) common questions of fact and law exist;
(iii) the Class Representatives' claims are typical of
the Class Members' claims; and (iv) the Class
Representatives will be able to fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the Class Members. In addition, the Court
finds that, for the purposes of Settlement only, with regard
to the Rule 23 Class, questions of law or fact common to the
Class predominate over questions affecting individual
members, and a class action is superior to other available
methods. Certification of the Rule 23 Class for settlement
purposes is the best means for protecting the interests of
all of the Class Members.
4. The Court finds that it likely will be able to approve the
Settlement Agreement under Rule 23(e)(2) because the
Settlement is the result of arm's-length negotiations
between experienced attorneys who are familiar with class
action litigation in general and with the legal and factual
issues of this case in particular.
5. The Court also finds that the Settlement Agreement
provides adequate relief to the Class Members considering the
costs, risks, and delay associated with trial and appeal as
well as the effectiveness of the proposed distribution of
settlement payments to Class Members. The Court further finds
that preliminary approval of the Settlement is supported by
the terms of the proposed attorneys' fee and costs and
proposed service awards.
6. The Settlement Agreement treats Class Members equitably
relative to each other since settlement payments are based on
an equitable formula taking into account the amount of time
worked, the pay rate for each class member, and the claims
asserted in the litigation.
7. Eric Dirks, Michael Hodgson, Derek Braziel and Jack Siegel
shall serve as Class Counsel and Plaintiffs Timothy Woods and
Kimberly Gibson shall serve as the Class Representatives.
8. The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notices of
Settlement as well as the Claim Form attached as Exhibits A-E
to the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that the
distribution of the Class Notices: (1) meets the requirements
of federal law and due process; (2) is the best notice
practicable under the circumstances; and (3) shall constitute
due and sufficient notice to all individuals entitled
9. Within sixty (60) days of the initial mailing of the Class
Notice, Class Members who have not previously opted in and
who wish to receive a settlement award must fill out and
submit or return a Claim Form, either electronically or by
mail, to the Settlement Administrator.
10. A Final Approval Hearing, for purposes of determining
whether the Settlement should be finally approved, shall be
held before this Court on November 5, 2019, at 10:00 AM in
Courtroom 7B of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Charles Evans Whittaker U.S.
Courthouse, 400 E. 9th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
At the hearing, the Court will hear final arguments
concerning whether the proposed Settlement of the litigation
on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement
Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved by the Court. The Court will also hear at that time
any timely objections submitted by Class Members.
11. Any Settlement Class Member may enter an appearance in
the litigation individually or through counsel of his or her
own choice. Any Class Member who does not enter an appearance
or exclude himself or herself from the ...