Opinion
Cause No. 02-CV-1109-DRH
March 19, 2004
ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, preliminarily approved by this Court on January 12, 2004. Pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Approval Order and the Notice provided to the Class, the Court conducted a fairness hearing pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23(e) on March 12, 2004. The Court has reviewed the materials submitted by the parties, and has heard arguments presented at such hearing. The Court finds and orders as follows:
1. The first settlement Class, referred to as "The WARN Act Settlement Class," is comprised of approximately ninety-one (91) former employees of Defendant's Centreville, Illinois facility and involves claims that Defendant failed to comply with the notice requirements of the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101, et seq., when it ceased operations at its Centreville, Illinois facility on October 11, 2002. Defendant denies such claims. The Court finds that this action satisfies the requirements of FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23(a) and (b)(1), see, e.g., Eliasen v. Green Bay W.R. Co., 93 F.R.D. 408 (D.C. Wis. 1982) (Reynolds, C.J.), aff'd, 705 F.2d 461 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 874 (1983), and grants final certification to the following class:
All former employees of Inter-Rail Transport, Inc., that were employed by Inter-Rail at its Centreville, Illinois facility on or before October 11, 2002, who were terminated on or after October 11, 2002 from their position at its Centreville Illinois facility and did not subsequently accept employment at another Inter-Rail Facility.
The Court further finds that the Class has at all times been adequately represented by the Named Plaintiffs and Class Counsel.
2. The second settlement Class, referred to as "The Personal Property Settlement Class," is comprised of approximately thirty-one (31) former employees of Defendant's Centreville, Illinois facility and involves claims that Defendant converted and tortiously interfered with personal property of such persons when it closed its Centreville, Illinois facilities on October 11, 2002. Defendant denies such claim. The Court finds that this action satisfies the requirements of FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23(a) and (b)(1), see, e.g., Eliasen v. Green Bay W.R. Co., 93 F.R.D. 408 (D.C. Wis. 1982) (Reynolds, C.J.), aff'd, 705 F.2d 461 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 874 (1983), and grants final certification to the following class:
All former employees of Inter-Rail Transport, Inc., that were employed by Inter-Rail at its Centreville, Illinois facility who lost personal property stored in lockers when Inter-Rail ceased operations at the Centreville Facility on October 11, 2002.
All members of The Personal Property Settlement Class are members of The WARN Act Settlement Class.
3. The Court approved Notice of Settlement was mailed to every Class Member at his/her last known address as reflected in Defendant's records and as updated by Class Counsel's records. Class Counsel was successful in locating approximately eighty-five (85) of the Class Members with his follow-up efforts to send the Notice to individuals whose original notice was returned as undeliverable. The Notice adequately described all the relevant and necessary parts of the Proposed Settlement Agreement. See FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e). See also Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1373-74 (9th Cir. 1993).
4. The Court finds that the Notice given to the Class fully complied with FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23 as it was the best notice practicable, satisfied all constitutional due process concerns, and provided the Court with jurisdiction over the Class Members. See Eisen v. Carlisle Jacqueline, 417 U.S. 156, 177-78 (1974); Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985).
5. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
6. The Court has considered and applied the factors set forth in Armstrong v. Bd. of School Dirs. of the City of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980), overruled on other grounds, Felzen v. Andreas, 134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1998), and has concluded that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Id. at 312. See also Isby v. Bayh, 75 F.3d 1191, 1196 (7th Cir. 1996). The Court finds that the delay, costs, risk and uncertainty of further litigation strongly support the reduction in the amounts that would have been paid had the Class prevailed in all respects alleged and through any and all appeals.
7. Out of the approximately eighty-five (85) notified Class Members, none of them objected to the Proposed Settlement Agreement.
8. The Court APPROVES the entire Settlement Agreement.
9. A permanent injunction, without the necessity of a bond, is hereby issued against Class Members from prosecuting parallel actions.
10. The parties are ordered to distribute the settlement proceeds in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that the distribution of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Court's Order awarding the same does not result in taxable income to any Class Members and that no withholding or 1099 reporting is required on that basis.
11. All other motions currently pending, but not ruled upon by the Court, are DENIED as moot.
12. This cause is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with this Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.