throbber
Case 1:21-cv-00510-LJL Document 192 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 49
`
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket