Full title: MICHAEL EASTERDAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly…
Court: United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage
Date published: Jul 6, 2023
Facts
This lawsuit began on October 19, 2015, when Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this matter, bringing claims against USPack under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, N.J. Stat § 34:11-4.1, et seq. (“NJWPL”), the New Jersey Wage and Hour law, N.J. Stat. § 34:11-56a, et seq. (“NJWHL”), and New Jersey common law. (ECF No. 1). The claims arise out of Plaintiff’s allegations that USPack classifies Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals as “independent contractors,” but the nature of the services and the manner in which the services are performed classify Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals as employees, such that they are entitled to certain hour and wage protections under New Jersey law. (Id. ¶ 15). Plaintiff brought these claims on behalf of a proposed class of “all other persons who have worked for USPack as courier drivers operating in the State of New Jersey. . during the applicable limitations period, and who have been classified as independent contractors rather than employees.” (Id. ¶ 11).
USPack moved to compel arbitration and stay litigation on November 24, 2015. (ECF No. 8). On March 23, 2022, after the parties spent seven years litigating the arbitration issue, we entered an Order and Opinion affirming Magistrate Judge Donio’s decision holding that the arbitration agreement in question was unenforceable. (ECF Nos. 255, 256). The parties agreed to participate in an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process, which included a mediation session overseen by Dennis Clifford, Esq. (Mot. at 5). As a result of the ADR process, the parties reached a settlement agreement. (Id. at 6). On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant unopposed motion, which presents the parties’ proposed settlement agreement and Plaintiff’s position on the law. (Mot. at 2).
Issue
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for provisional certification of a settlement class and preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement agreement is GRANTED. However, because the proposed notice to the settlement class does not meet the requirements of due process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), Plaintiff’s request to schedule a final fairness hearing is DENIED. An order follows.