Quantcast

Judge OKs $162K class action settlement with diner; Attorneys in line for $53K

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, November 24, 2024

Judge OKs $162K class action settlement with diner; Attorneys in line for $53K

Federal Court
U.s. district judge anita brody

Judge Anita B. Brody

PHILADELPHIA - A federal court has green-lighted a settlement stemming from a class action lawsuit against a Pennsylvania restaurant accused of having an illegal tip pool.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 21 granted Alexis Flores and Virginia Goold’s motion to certify their class in their lawsuit against Eagle Diner Corporation and its owners: James Rokos, Maria Rokos, Marko Rokos and Zisi Rokos. It also approved the preliminary settlement of up to $162,500.

The settlement covers up to $88,875 for damages, separate $5,000 enhancement awards for Flores and Goold, up to $53,625 in attorneys' fees and up to $10,000 for "out of pocket" costs related to lodging the complaint and administering the settlement, but in the ruling, Judge Anita B. Brody reserved the right to revisit those costs at a later date to determine whether they are fair. 

Flores and Goold accused Eagle Diner of violating their rights in the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Goold and Flores said the defendants not only had an unlawful tip pool, but also enforced illegal overtime rules, their lawsuit said. 

The court said Flores and Goold were representational and ruled that Stephan Zouras LLP is proper counsel for the class. The 129 members satisfied the legal minimum requirement of 40 for class status, and they shared commonality in their complaints against the Rokoses, Brody said. 

The court also green-lighted the proposed notice of class action and collective action settlement, appointed Atticus Administration LLC as the administrator, set a schedule for distributing notice for opting out, objecting, and/or withdrawing consent from the settlement and scheduled a final settlement approval hearing.

The court also said the plaintiffs met the Rule 23(b) requirements for predominance, superiority, and ascertainability.

More News