`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`ANATOLIY MIKITYUK, MITCH
`
`TALLUNGAN, and WADE HONEY, individually
`
`and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`Civ. No.: 21-cv-510 (LJL)
`
`
`
`
`
`CISION US INC., CISION LTD., and FALCON
`SOCIAL INC., and FALCON.IO US, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
`COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT, SERVICE AWARDS, AND ATTORNEYS’
`FEES AND COSTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 2 of 49
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ................................. 2
`A.
`Factual Allegations ................................................................................................. 2
`B.
`Overview of Investigation, Litigation, and Settlement Negotiations ..................... 3
`1.
`Presuit Investigation.................................................................................... 3
`2.
`Presuit Discussions ..................................................................................... 3
`3.
`Potential Rule 12(b)(6) Motion and Section 216(b) Motion ...................... 3
`4.
`The Court’s 216(b) Order and Additional Briefing Regarding Notice ....... 4
`5.
`The Notice Period and Additional Briefing ................................................ 5
`6.
`Plaintiffs’ Motion to File a Third Amended Complaint ............................. 6
`7.
`Cision’s Requests for Discovery from Plaintiffs ........................................ 7
`8.
`Plaintiffs’ Requests for Discovery from Defendants .................................. 8
`9.
`Settlement Discussions ............................................................................. 10
`Summary of the Settlement Terms ................................................................................... 11
`A.
`The Settlement Fund and Eligible Employees ...................................................... 11
`B.
`Notice and Distribution Process............................................................................ 12
`C.
`Allocation Formula ............................................................................................... 13
`D.
`Releases................................................................................................................. 14
`E.
`Service Awards ..................................................................................................... 14
`F.
`Settlement Administration .................................................................................... 14
`G.
`Attorneys’ Fees and Costs .................................................................................... 15
`Argument .......................................................................................................................... 15
`A.
`A One-Step Approval Process Is Standard for FLSA Settlements. ...................... 15
`B.
`The Settlement Is Fair and Should Be Approved. ................................................ 16
`C.
`The Service Awards Should Be Approved as Fair and Reasonable. .................... 21
`The Court Should Approve Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Costs as
`Fair and Reasonable .......................................................................................................... 28
`A.
`The Court Should Award Attorneys’ Fees as a Percentage of the Fund .............. 28
`B.
`Analysis of the Market for Legal Services Supports Plaintiffs’ Request ............. 30
`C.
`Plaintiffs’ Requested Fee Award Is Reasonable ................................................... 31
`
`ii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 3 of 49
`
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Actual Lodestar Far Exceeds Their Request. ...................... 32
`D.
`Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Reimbursement of Costs............................................... 35
`E.
`REDISTRIBUTION TO PROPOSED CY PRES DESIGNEE MFJ LEGAL SERVICES
`IS APPROPRIATE. .......................................................................................................... 37
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 38
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 4 of 49
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases ..................................................................................................................................... Page(s)
`
`Aguilar v. N & A Prods.,
`No. 19 Civ. 1703, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185030 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2019) ........................17
`
`Aguilar v. N & A Prods.,
`No. 19 Civ. 1703, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222761 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2019) ........................17
`
`Alleyne v. Time Moving & Storage Inc.,
`264 F.R.D. (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ....................................................................................................31
`
`Alli v. Bos. Mkt. Corp.,
`No. 10 Civ. 4, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143303 (D. Conn. Dec. 8, 2011) ................................20
`
`Aponte v. Comprehensive Health Mgmt., Inc.,
`No. 10 Civ. 4825, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47637 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2013) ............................26
`
`Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cty. of Albany & Albany
`Cty. Bd. of Elections,
`522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008).....................................................................................................34
`
`Aros v. United Rentals, Inc.,
`No. 10 Civ. 73, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104429 (D. Conn. July 26, 2012) .............................21
`
`Barbour v. City of White Plains,
`788 F. Supp. 2d 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)......................................................................................33
`
`Beckert v. Rubinov,
`No. 15 Civ. 1951, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167052 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2015) ........................18
`
`Beckman v. KeyBank, N.A.,
`293 F.R.D. 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .................................................................................16, 31, 32
`
`Beebe v. V&J Nat’l Enters., LLC,
`No. 17 Civ. 6075, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96059 (W.D.N.Y. June 1, 2020) ..........................37
`
`Blanchard v. Bergeron,
`489 U.S. 87 (1989) ...................................................................................................................34
`
`Blum v. Merrill Lynch & Co.,
`Nos. 15 Civ. 1636, 15 Civ. 2960, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197385 (S.D.N.Y.
`May 4, 2016) ............................................................................................................................32
`
`Blum v. Stenson,
`465 U.S. 886 (1984) .................................................................................................................34
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 5 of 49
`
`Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert,
`444 U.S. 472 (1980) .................................................................................................................28
`
`Bozak v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.,
`No. 11 Civ. 738, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106042 (D. Conn. July 31, 2014) .....................15, 20
`
`Strougo ex rel. Brazilian Equity Fund, Inc. v. Bassini,
`258 F. Supp. 2d 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)......................................................................................30
`
`Briggs v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc.,
`No. 15 Civ. 10447, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165560 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2016) .................15, 31
`
`Campbell v. City of Los Angeles,
`903 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................19
`
`Caprile v. Harabel Inc.,
`No. 14 Civ. 6386, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127332 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 16, 2015) ........................31
`
`Capsolas v. Pasta Res., Inc.,
`No. 10 Civ. 5595, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144651 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2012) ..........................16
`
`Castillo v. Noodles & Co.,
`No. 16 Civ. 3036, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178977 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2016) .........................30
`
`Ceka v. PBM/CMSI Inc.,
`No. 12 Civ. 1711, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168169 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2014) ..............25, 26, 27
`
`Chavarria v. N.Y. Airport Serv., LLC,
`875 F. Supp. 2d 164 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) .....................................................................................31
`
`Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.,
`796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015)...............................................................................................16, 17
`
`Clem v. KeyBank, N.A.,
`No. 13 Civ. 789, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87174 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2014) ............................32
`
`Cohan v. Columbia Sussex Mgmt., LLC,
`No. 12. Civ. 3203, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170192 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2018) ......................31
`
`In re Colgate-Palmolive Co. ERISA Litig.,
`36 F. Supp. 3d 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)........................................................................................28
`
`Contreras v. Rosann Landscape Corp.,
`No. 17 Civ. 6453, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54115 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2021)..........................26
`
`Deas v. Alba Carting & Demolition Inc.,
`No. 17 Civ. 3947, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38803 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2021) ...........................26
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 6 of 49
`
`DeLeon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`No. 12 Civ. 4494, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65261 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) ......................24, 25
`
`DeSilva v. N. Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System,
`27 F. Supp. 3d 313 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) .......................................................................................19
`
`Diaz v. E. Locating Serv.,
`No. 10 Civ. 4082, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139136 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2010) .................35, 36
`
`Felix v. Breakroom Burgers & Tacos,
`No. 15 Civ. 3531, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30050 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2016) ...........................17
`
`Flores v. Mamma Lombardi’s of Holbrook, Inc.,
`104 F. Supp. 3d 290 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) .....................................................................................15
`
`Florin v. Nationsbank, N.A.,
`34 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................29
`
`Frank v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
`228 F.R.D. 174 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) ......................................................................................22, 25
`
`Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk,
`569 U.S. 66 (2013) ...................................................................................................................16
`
`Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc.,
`209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000).......................................................................................................33
`
`Guippone v. BH S & B Holdings, LLC,
`No. 09 Civ. 1029, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126026 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2011) ........................22
`
`Gusman v. Unisys Corp.,
`986 F.2d 1146 (7th Cir. 1993) (Easterbrook, J.) ......................................................................35
`
`Henry v. Little Mint, Inc.,
`No. 12 Civ. 3996, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72574 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2014) ..........................20
`
`Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling,
`493 U.S. 165 (1989) .................................................................................................................16
`
`In re Indep. Energy Holdings PLC Sec. Litig.,
`302 F. Supp. 2d 180 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)......................................................................................35
`
`Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.,
`488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) ...................................................................................................34
`
`Kahlil v. Original Old Homestead Rest., Inc.,
`657 F. Supp. 2d 470 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)......................................................................................33
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 7 of 49
`
`Kassman v. KPMG LLP,
`No. 11 Civ. 3743, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71243 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2021) ..........................15
`
`Kirchoff v. Flynn,
`786 F. 2d 320 (7th Cir. 1986) ..................................................................................................30
`
`Knox v. Jones Grp.,
`No. 15 Civ. 1738, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146049 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 31, 2017) ........................15
`
`Lauture v. A.C. Moore Arts & Crafts, Inc.,
`No. 17 Civ. 10219, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87928 (D. Mass. June 8, 2017) ..........................15
`
`In re Lloyd’s Am. Trust Fund Litig.,
`No. 96 Civ. 1262, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22663 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2002) .........................30
`
`Louzau v. FedEx Package Sys.,
`No. 05 Civ. 538, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64930 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 28, 2017) ............................38
`
`Lovaglio v. W & E Hosp. Inc.,
`No. 10 Civ. 7351, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94077 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2012) ............................27
`
`Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States,
`679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) ...............................................................................................16
`
`M.H.v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ.,
`No. 20 Civ. 1923, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190419 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2021) ..........................36
`
`Martignago v. Merrill Lynch & Co.,
`No. 11 Civ. 3923, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205935 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013) ..........................18
`
`McKenna v. Champion Int’l Corp.,
`747 F.2d 1211 (8th Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................16
`
`Medley v. Am. Cancer Soc’y,
`No. 10 Civ. 3214, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75098 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2010) ..........................15
`
`Millea v. Metro-North R.R. Co.,
`658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011).....................................................................................................33
`
`Morris v. Affinity Health Plan, Inc.,
`859 F. Supp. 2d 611 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)....................................................................17, 18, 20, 37
`
`Oleniak v. Time Warner Cable,
`No. 12 Civ. 3971, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207945 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2013) ........................18
`
`Parker v. Jekyll & Hyde Ent. Holdings, L.L.C.,
`No. 08 Civ. 7670, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12762 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2010) ......................22, 27
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 8 of 49
`
`In re Penthouse Exec. Club Comp. Litig.,
`No. 10 Civ. 1145, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5864 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2014) .............................35
`
`Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn,
`559 U.S. 542 (2010) .................................................................................................................32
`
`Puglisi v. TD Bank, N.A.,
`No. 13 Civ. 637, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100668 (E.D.N.Y. July 30, 2015) ..........................27
`
`Quow v. Accurate Mech. Inc.,
`No. 15 Civ. 9852, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114524 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2018).........................17
`
`Reyes v. Altamarea Grp., LLC,
`No. 10 Civ. 6451, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115984 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2011) ...........16, 22, 27
`
`In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`396 F.3d 294 (3rd Cir. 2005) ...................................................................................................28
`
`Roberts v. Texaco, Inc.,
`979 F. Supp. 185 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ....................................................................................22, 23
`
`Rozell v. Ross-Holst,
`576 F. Supp. 2d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)......................................................................................35
`
`Santos v. Yellowstone Props.,
`15 Civ. 3986, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61994 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2016) .................................31
`
`Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`954 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2020).....................................................................................................19
`
`Sewell v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc.,
`No. 09 Civ. 6548, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53556 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2012) .................. passim
`
`Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., Inc.,
`659 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2011).....................................................................................................22
`
`Skelton v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`860 F.2d 250 (7th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................29
`
`Solis v. Orthonet LLC,
`No. 19 Civ. 4678, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122512 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2021) ........................31
`
`Stock v. Xerox Corp.,
`516 F. Supp. 3d 308 (W.D.N.Y. 2021) ....................................................................................15
`
`Sukhnandan v. Royal Health Care of Long Island, LLC,
`No. 12 Civ. 4216, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105596 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2014).............26, 27, 28
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 9 of 49
`
`In re Sumitomo Copper Litig.,
`74 F. Supp. 2d 393 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)........................................................................................30
`
`Thind v. Healthfirst Mgmt. Servs., LLC,
`No. 14 Civ. 9539, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170503 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2016) ..........................19
`
`In re Thirteen Appeals Arising out of San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig,
`56 F.3d 295 (1st Cir. 1995) ......................................................................................................29
`
`Torres v. Gristede’s Operating Corp.,
`No. 04 Civ. 3316, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127890 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2012) .........................33
`
`Toure v. Amerigroup Corp.,
`No. 10 Civ. 5391, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110300 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2012) .........................25
`
`In re Veeco Instruments Sec. Litig.,
`No. 05 MDL 01695, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85554 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2007) .......................37
`
`Velez v. Majik Cleaning Serv.,
`No. 03 Civ. 8698, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46223 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2007) ..........................21
`
`Wal-Mart Stores v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
`396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005).................................................................................................28, 29
`
`Weston v. TechSol, LLC,
`No. 17 Civ. 141, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166574 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2018) ...................15, 20
`
`Willix v. Healthfirst, Inc.,
`No. 07 Civ. 1143, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21102 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2011) ..........................27
`
`Zivali v. AT & T Mobility, LLC,
`784 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)......................................................................................19
`
`Zorrilla v. Carlson Rests., Inc.,
`No. 14 Civ. 2740, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60772 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2018) ............................26
`
`In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`594 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2010).....................................................................................................28
`
`Statutes
`
`29 U.S.C. § 216(b) .................................................................................................................3, 4, 28
`
`Fair Labor Standards Act ....................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 10 of 49
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Kathleen Dailey, Cision Facing Sales Employee Class Suit for Unpaid Overtime,
`Bloomberg Law (Jan. 21, 2021, 12:49 PM),
`https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/cision-facing-sales-
`employee-class-suit-for-unpaid-overtime. ...............................................................................23
`
`Nantiya Ruan, Bringing Sense to Incentives: An Examination of Incentive
`Payments to Named Plaintiffs in Employment Discrimination Class Actions,
`10 Emp. Rts. & Emp. Pol’y J. 395 (2006) ...............................................................................21
`
`Sean Czarnecki, Public Relations Tech Giant Cision Faces a Collective Action
`Lawsuit over Overtime Pay, Business Insider (May 17, 2021, 11:01 AM),
`https://www.businessinsider.com/cision-faces-collective-action-lawsuit-
`alleging-unpaid-overtime-2021-5 ............................................................................................23
`
`Workplace Justice, Mobilization for Justice,
`https://mobilizationforjustice.org/projects/workplace-justice-project/ (last
`visited May 31, 2022) ..............................................................................................................38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 11 of 49
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs Anatoliy Mikityuk, Mitch Tallungan, and Wade Honey (“Plaintiffs”) and
`
`Defendants Cision US Inc., Cision Ltd., Falcon Social Inc., and Falcon.io US, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Defendants” or “Cision,” and together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), have agreed, subject to
`
`Court approval, to resolve this wage and hour lawsuit for the thirty-eight Plaintiffs and Opt-in
`
`Plaintiffs for $325,000. The settlement, which followed a thorough investigation and a year and
`
`a half of contested litigation including formal discovery and significant motion practice, satisfies
`
`the criteria for approval of a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action settlement
`
`because it resolves a bona fide dispute, was reached after contested litigation, was the result of
`
`arm’s-length settlement negotiations, and provides good value to the workers whom it will
`
`benefit.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an order: (1) approving
`
`the $325,000 settlement set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release (“Settlement
`
`Agreement”) attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Melissa L. Stewart (“Stewart Decl.”)1;
`
`(2) approving the proposed Settlement Notice and directing its distribution; (3) approving
`
`Service Awards to three Named Plaintiffs, one Opt-in Deponent, and four Opt-in Declarants; (4)
`
`approving Plaintiffs’ request for one-third of the settlement for attorneys’ fees plus
`
`reimbursement of costs and expenses; (5) approving the Settlement Administrator’s fees and
`
`costs; (6) incorporating the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (7) dismissing this case with
`
`prejudice, with leave to reinstate if necessary to enforce the terms of the Settlement; and (8)
`
`retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement.
`
`
`1
`Unless otherwise indicated, all exhibits are attached to the Stewart Declaration, and all
`capitalized terms have the definitions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 12 of 49
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Factual Allegations
`
`Cision is a public relations software and services provider. See ECF No. 174 (Third
`
`Amended Complaint (“TAC”)) ¶ 2; ECF No. 48 (Opinion and Order Granting § 216(b) Notice
`
`(“§ 216(b) Order”)), at 1. Cision employs Sales Representatives2 to sell its software products
`
`and services. TAC ¶ 8. Plaintiffs allege that Cision violated the FLSA by failing to pay them
`
`proper overtime wages for all hours worked above 40 in a workweek. See TAC ¶ 246-61.
`
`Plaintiff Mikityuk alleges parallel and derivative claims, and claims for unpaid straight time, on
`
`behalf of New York Sales Representatives under the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). See id.
`
`¶¶ 262-82. Plaintiff Tallungan alleges parallel claims, and claims for unpaid straight time, on
`
`behalf of Illinois Sales Representatives under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. See
`
`id. ¶¶ 283-98. Plaintiff Honey alleges parallel claims, and claims for unpaid straight time, on
`
`behalf of Maryland Sales Representatives under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, id. ¶¶ 299-
`
`306, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, id. ¶¶ 307-11.
`
`Cision denies these allegations. See generally ECF No. 181 (Answer to TAC).
`
`
`2
`“Sales Representatives” includes the following job titles: Account Executive, Account
`Executive (EX), Account Executive (SAAS), Account Executive – Falcon.io, Account Executive
`(NE), Account Executive II (SAAS), Associate Account Executive, Associate Account Executive
`(SAAS), Business Development Associate, Business Development Executive, Business Development
`Manager, Business Development Representative, Business Development Specialist, Inside New
`Business Development Representative, Sales Associate, Sales Development Representative, Sales
`Development Representative – Falcon.io, Sales Development Representative – TrendKite, Sales
`Development Representative TrendKite (NE), Sales Development Representative II (NE), Senior
`Account Executive 1 (NE), Senior Account Executive 2 (NE), Senior Sales Development
`Representative, Sales Executive, Midmarket Sales Executive, Sales Representative, and Senior Sales
`Representative. Ex A (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 1.8.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 13 of 49
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Investigation, Litigation, and Settlement Negotiations
`
`1.
`
`Presuit Investigation
`
`Before initiating this action, Plaintiffs’ Counsel conducted a thorough investigation into
`
`the merits of the potential claims and defenses and conducted in-depth interviews of multiple
`
`Sales Representatives, including Plaintiffs, Opt-in Deponent, Opt-in Declarants, and other former
`
`employees. Stewart Decl. ¶ 14.
`
`2.
`
`Presuit Discussions
`
`Prior to filing suit, Plaintiffs’ Counsel contacted Defendants to invite them to explore pre-
`
`litigation settlement discussions regarding the claims. Id. ¶ 15. Defendants agreed to enter into a
`
`tolling agreement and counsel for the Parties met-and-conferred by telephone several times about
`
`the possibility of settlement discussions, but the Parties were not able to agree to pursue
`
`information exchange or mediation to facilitate a class-wide settlement dialogue. Id. ¶ 16.
`
`Potential Rule 12(b)(6) Motion and Section 216(b) Motion
`
`3.
`Plaintiffs3 filed a class and collective action on behalf of themselves and other Sales
`
`Representatives. ECF No. 1. The litigation was hotly contested from the beginning. Stewart
`
`Decl. ¶ 17. Defendant Cision US Inc. stated by letter that it intended to move to dismiss the
`
`complaint (Defendant Cision Ltd. had not accepted service). ECF No. 10; Stewart Decl. ¶ 18.
`
`Through a series of meet-and-confers, the Parties discussed the allegations, Plaintiffs revised the
`
`complaint to address the purported deficiencies Defendants’ Counsel raised, and Defendants
`
`consented to the filing of the First Amended Complaint. Stewart Decl. ¶ 19; ECF No. 16; ECF
`
`No. 19; ECF No. 20 (First Amended Complaint).
`
`
`3
`The original Complaint in this matter was filed by Plaintiffs Mikityuk, Tallungan, and
`former named plaintiff and Opt-in Deponent Michael Esquibel. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff Honey’s
`consent to join, and the consent-to-join forms of the Opt-in Declarants, were filed
`contemporaneously. See ECF No. 4.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 14 of 49
`
`In parallel, Plaintiffs moved for Court-authorized notice of the lawsuit to Sales
`
`Representatives nationwide pursuant to Section 216(b). ECF No. 12; Stewart Decl. ¶ 20. The
`
`Parties met-and-conferred to attempt to narrow the scope of their dispute regarding the issuance
`
`of notice. Id. ¶ 21. Defendants ultimately opposed various aspects of the 216(b) Motion,
`
`including: (1) nationwide notice, arguing that notice should be limited to Sales Representatives
`
`in New York, Illinois, and Maryland, where Plaintiffs worked; (2) notice to Sales
`
`Representatives in job titles not specifically enumerated in the complaint; (3) certain aspects of
`
`the content and format of Plaintiffs’ proposed notice, and (4) dissemination of the notice by
`
`means other than U.S. Mail, including email. ECF No. 38. Following Plaintiffs’ reply, ECF No.
`
`43, the Court invited the Parties to submit supplemental briefing on an additional topic, raised by
`
`the Court sua sponte: Plaintiffs’ proposal to receive and file consent to join forms on behalf of
`
`putative collective members. ECF No. 45; see ECF No. 43; ECF Nos. 46-47.
`
`4.
`
`The Court’s 216(b) Order and Additional Briefing Regarding Notice
`
`The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to send notice to the putative collective nationwide
`
`and authorized notice by email over Cision’s objections. ECF No. 48. The Court requested
`
`certain modifications to the notice and required putative collective members to send their consent
`
`forms to the Clerk of Court. ECF No. 48, at 20-22. The Parties also disputed various aspects of
`
`Plaintiffs’ proposed email notice. See ECF Nos. 57, 62, 65, 70, 72. The Court approved
`
`Plaintiffs’ proposed email notice, ECF No. 74, including Plaintiffs’ request to include a
`
`hyperlink to a fillable PDF for putative collective members to print and mail to the Clerk to
`
`facilitate the participation of opt-ins who might only receive notice by email (if mail was
`
`returned as undeliverable), see ECF No. 65, which Defendants’ opposed, see ECF No. 70. The
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 15 of 49
`
`Court also approved Plaintiffs’ request to retain a notice administrator in the event it proved cost
`
`effective, ECF No. 74, which Defendants had opposed, see ECF No. 70.
`
`5.
`
`The Notice Period and Additional Briefing
`
`Notice to the collective issued on July 6, 2021. Stewart Decl. ¶ 22. Additional disputes
`
`arose during the notice period. Id. ¶ 23. The Parties disagreed about whether the Court’s order
`
`permitted a remailing and corresponding extension of the notice period to collective members
`
`whose notices were returned as undeliverable by U.S. mail or email, or only to collective
`
`members whose notices were returned as undeliverable by both methods. Id. ¶ 24; see ECF Nos.
`
`115; 119. Plaintiffs also raised a dispute about Defendants’ exclusion of Sales Representatives
`
`who sold Falcon.io-branded products, whom Plaintiffs alleged were employed by Cision. ECF
`
`No. 117;4 ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 4-5. The Court held that Plaintiffs could send a remailing only to
`
`putative collective members whose notices had been returned as undeliverable by both U.S. Mail
`
`and email, though the Court recognized that “the revised notice approved by the Court
`
`admittedly is somewhat ambiguous.” ECF No. 127, at 3. The Court also denied Plaintiffs’
`
`motion to compel the production of collective list information for New York Sales
`
`Representatives who sold Falcon.io-branded products. ECF No. 127, at 6-7. Plaintiffs raised
`
`with the Court issues regarding the Clerk of Court’s processing of consent to join forms,
`
`including the filing of personal identifying information on the docket and the Clerk’s office’s
`
`misplacement of envelopes showing the postmark date of a consent form. ECF No. 90.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel communicated with the ECF Helpdesk and the Clerk’s Office to resolve these
`
`issues. Stewart Decl. ¶ 25. Plaintiffs’ Counsel also interviewed a collective member and
`
`
`4
`Plaintiffs also moved to compel the production of discovery about Cision’s relationships
`with its affiliates. See ECF No. 117.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 16 of 49
`
`conferred with Defendants regarding a dispute Defendants raised over whether a consent to join
`
`was timely filed, because the envelope was not postmarked due to a postal error. Id. ¶ 26.
`
`The notice period closed for the vast majority of the putative collective on September 4,
`
`2021. Id. ¶ 27. A total of forty-one individuals submitted consent to join forms, counting
`
`Plaintiffs and the original Opt-in Plaintiffs. See ECF Nos. 1, 4, 84, 93-101, 103-05, 107-09, 112-
`
`14, 116-, 122-25, 131-33, 139-41. During the course of the litigation, three Opt-in Plaintiffs
`
`subsequently withdrew their consent forms, see ECF Nos. 160, 182, 183, leaving a total of thirty-
`
`eight individuals.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion to File a Third Amended Complaint5
`
`Following the Court’s order denying production of contact information for Sales
`
`Representatives who sold Falcon.io-branded products and for discovery on Cision’s relationships
`
`with its affiliates, see ECF No. 127, at 6-7, on October 21, 2021, Plaintiffs moved to amend the
`
`complai