Mcfarland v. Nestle USA inc et al
Court Docket Sheet

Eastern District of Arkansas

3:2016-cv-00100 (ared)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Joy McFarland(Fee of $400 received; Summons issued and returned to Plaintiff's counsel for service).

Case 3:16-cv-00100-JLH Document 1 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 11 FILED U.S. DISTRICT Cotmr EASTERN [)J~ TRICT Af<IUd~SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS APR 11 2013 JONESBORO DIVISION JOY McFARLAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. No. 3:16-cv-DOllP.5df/M NESTLE USA, INC. and DEFENDANTS NESTLE PREPARED FOODS COMPANY This-"'Ss;gned C<JS;-> J~ ' 1,_, t0 o·istrict Judne J//7'1VhEf and to ~·/lagistrate Judge "'!"-~.l!.f_ Etffi _ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT-CLASS ACTION COMES NOW Plaintiff Joy McFarland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through her attorneys Joshua West and Josh Sanford of the Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, and for her Original Complaint-Class Action ("Complaint"), states and alleges as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff Joy McFarland ("McFarland" or "Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, brings this action against Defendants Nestle USA, Inc. ("Nestle USA"}, and Nestle Prepared Foods Company ("Nestle Prepared Foods"), (collectively "Defendants") for violations of the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"). Page 1of11 Joy McFarland, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al. U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) 3:16-CV-_ __ Original Complaint-Class Action Case 3:16-cv-00100-JLH Document 1 Filed 04/11/16 Page 2 of 11 2. Plaintiff seeks a collective action pursuant to Section 216 of the FLSA and a class action pursuant to the AMWA and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Plaintiff further seeks a declaratory judgment; monetary damages; liquidated damages; prejudgment interest; costs and a reasonable attorney's fee, within the applicable statutory limitations period as a result of Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum wages and overtime compensation under the FLSA and the AMWA. 4. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages for Defendants' violations of the AMWA based on the principles found in the Civil Justice Reform Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-206. 5. The relevant time period of this Complaint is all of the time within the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. Plaintiff and those similarly situated seek a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 7. Plaintiff seeks compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. 8. Accordingly, this Court has "federal question" jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1337. 9. This Complaint also alleges causes of action under the AMWA, which arise out of the same set of operative facts as the federal causes of action, and which would be expected to be tried with the federal claims in a single judicial proceeding. Page 2of11 Joy McFarland, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al. U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) 3:16-CV-_ __ Original Complaint-Class Action Case 3:16-cv-00100-JLH Document 1 Filed 04/11/16 Page 3 of 11 1O. Accordingly, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the additional AMWA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 11. Plaintiff alleges violations of the FLSA and the AMWA as a result of and while working at Defendants' premises in Jonesboro, Arkansas. 12. The acts complained of were committed and had their principal effect, as described more fully below, within the Eastern District of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division; therefore, venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Ill. PARTIES 13. Plaintiff is an individual and resident of Jonesboro, Arkansas. 14. Defendants are registered as foreign, for-profit corporations with the Arkansas Secretary of State. 15. Defendants operate a prepared foods manufacturing facility in Jonesboro, Arkansas (the "Facility"). 16. Nestle USA maintains a webpage at http://www.nestleusa.com/. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 17. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint above, as if fully set forth herein. 18. During the relevant time, Defendants had two or more employees who engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce, or who handled, sold, or otherwise worked on goods or materials that had been moved in or produced for interstate commerce, including, but not limited to, prepared food products. Page 3of11 Joy McFarland, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al. U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) 3:16-CV-_ __ Original Complaint-Class Action Case 3:16-cv-00100-JLH Document 1 Filed 04/11/16 Page 4 of 11 19. For each of the four calendar years preceding the filing of the Original Complaint, each Defendant's annual gross volume of sales made or business done was not less than $500,000.00 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that are separately stated). 20. During each of the four calendar years preceding the filing of the Original Complaint, Defendants continuously employed at least four individuals at the Facility. 21. In August of 2014, Defendants hired Plaintiff as a prepared-food manufacturing worker ("line worker") at the Facility. 22. Plaintiff regularly worked forty hours or more per week. 23. As a line worker, Plaintiff was subject to Defendant's policies and practices applicable to line workers as described in Section V and VI. V. FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 24. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint above, as if fully set forth herein. 25. Plaintiff brings her claims for relief for violation of the FLSA as a collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of all persons who are similarly situated to Plaintiff. 26. Defendants employed line workers, including Plaintiff, who performed duties related to manufacturing of prepared foods. 27. The proposed FLSA class members are similarly situated in that they have been subject to uniform policies and practices by Defendants which violated the FLSA. 28. Specifically, line workers were paid an hourly wage. Line workers regularly worked forty or more hours per week. Line workers were required to don and Page 4of11 Joy McFarland, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al. U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) 3:16-CV-_ __ Original Complaint-Class Action Case 3:16-cv-00100-JLH Document 1 Filed 04/11/16 Page 5 of 11 doff special equipment and clothing provided by Defendant before clocking-in and after clocking-out. Line workers were required to check-out and check-in equipment before clocking-in and after clocking-out. Line workers checked-out and checked-in equipment at the same location, where line workers regularly had to wait in line to complete. 29. Line workers spent up to ten or fifteen minutes per day prior to clocking-in, and up to ten or fifteen minutes per day after clocking out, donning and doffing special equipment and clothing, such as bump hats, gloves, flashlights, coats, full-body uniforms, ear protection, eye goggles, hair nets, beard nets, and other such items. 30. Defendant did not pay line workers one and one-half times their regular rate for the time that line workers spent donning and doffing special equipment and clothing. VI. RULE 23 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 31. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint above, as if fully set forth herein. 32. While Plaintiff does not know the exact number of potential class members, upon information and belief, Plaintiff estimates that there may be at least one-thousand other line workers who were subject to the same policies and procedures as Plaintiff. 33. Common questions of law or fact common to the class of line workers are: A. Whether Defendants are employers under the AMWA; 8. Whether the members of the class are employees of Defendants under the AMWA; Page 5of11 Joy McFarland, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al. U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) 3:16-CV-_ __ Original Complaint-Class Action Case 3:16-cv-00100-JLH Document 1 Filed 04/11/16 Page 6 of 11 C. Whether donning and doffing of special equipment and clothing is compensable under the AMWA; D. Whether Defendants paid members of the class one and one-half times the minimum wage or members' regular rate for all hours worked over forty for every work week; E. Whether Defendants knew or should have known that Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages or overtime would result in violations oftheAMWA; 34. As demonstrated by the allegations in Sections IV and V above, Plaintiff's claims are typical of the class of line workers because both claim unpaid overtime wages for donning and doffing of special equipment and clothing, the claims arose from the same employer at the same location pursuant to the same practices and policies, and the claims are based on the same legal theories. 35. As a former line worker, Plaintiff is not only a member of the class, but Plaintiff is an adequate class representative because Plaintiff was not paid proper overtime, and therefore, Plaintiff has an interest in seeking recovery for the same types of damages that members of the class would seek. 36. Plaintiff knows of no conflict of interest with the class of line workers who worked at the Facility. 37. Plaintiff has hired the Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, to pursue her claims for unpaid overtime. The Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, focuses its practice on wage and hour claims under the FLSA and the AMWA It has represented similar line workers asserting unpaid wage claims for donning and doffing numerous other cases. It has Page 6of11 Joy McFarland, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al. U.S.D.C. {E.D. Ark.) 3:16-CV-_ __ Original Complaint-Class Action Case 3:16-cv-00100-JLH Document 1 Filed 04/11/16 Page 7 of 11 also represented numerous other employees all over the United States in wage and hour claims in numerous other types of wage cases. VII. LEGAL ALLEGATIONS A. Individual Claim for Violation of FLSA 38. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint above, as if fully set forth herein. 39. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all overtime wages required under the FLSA. 40. Defendants required Plaintiff to don and doff special equipment and clothing before clocking-in and after clocking-out, all during weeks in which Plaintiff worked more than forty hours per week. 41. Defendants' conduct and practices, as described above, were willful, intentional, unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith. 42. By reason of the unlawful acts alleged herein, Defendants is liable to Plaintiff for monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorney's fee provided by the FLSA for all violations which occurred beginning at least three (3) years preceding the filing of Plaintiff's initial complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling. 43. Alternatively, should the Court find that Defendants acted in good faith in failing to pay Plaintiff as provided by the FLSA, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the applicable legal rate. B. Individual Claim for Violation of AMWA 44. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint above, as if fully set forth herein. Page 7of11 Joy McFarland, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al. U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) 3:16-CV-_ __ Original Complaint-Class Action Case 3:16-cv-00100-JLH Document 1 Filed 04/11/16 Page 8 of 11 45. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all overtime wages required under the AMWA. 46. Defendants required Plaintiff to don and doff special equipment and clothing before clocking-in and after clocking-out, all during weeks in which Plaintiff worked more than forty hours per week. 47. Defendants' conduct and practices, as described above, were willful, intentional, unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith. 48. By reason of the unlawful acts alleged herein, Defendants is liable to Plaintiff for monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorney's fee provided by the AMWA for all violations which occurred beginning at least three (3) years preceding the filing of Plaintiff's initial complaint, plus periods of equitable tolling. 49. Alternatively, should the Court find that Defendants acted in good faith in failing to pay Plaintiff as provided by the AMWA, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the applicable legal rate. C. Collective Action Claim for Violations of the FLSA 50. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint above, as if fully set forth herein. 51. Defendants failed to pay line workers similarly situated to Plaintiff all overtime wages required under the FLSA. 52. Defendants required other line workers similarly situated to Plaintiff to don and doff special equipment and clothing before clocking-in and after clocking-out, all during weeks in which line workers worked more than forty hours per week. Page 8of11 Joy McFarland, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al. U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) 3:16-CV-_ __ Original Complaint-Class Action Case 3:16-cv-00100-JLH Document 1 Filed 04/11/16 Page 9 of 11 53. Defendants' conduct and practice, as described above, were willful, intentional, unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith. 54. By reason of the unlawful acts alleged herein, Defendants are liable to line workers similarly situated to Plaintiff for monetary damages, liquidated damages and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees provided by the FLSA. D. Rule 23 Class Action Claim for Violation of AMWA 55. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint above, as if fully set forth herein. 56. Defendants failed to pay line workers similarly situated to Plaintiff all overtime wages required under the AMWA. 57. Defendants required other line workers similarly situated to Plaintiff to don and doff special equipment and clothing before clocking-in and after clocking-out, all during weeks in which line workers worked more than forty hours per week.. 58. Defendants' conduct and practice, as described above, are or were willful, intentional, unreasonable, arbitrary and in bad faith. 59. By reason of the unlawful acts alleged herein, Defendants is liable to Plaintiff for monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and a reasonable attorney's fee provided by the AMWA. VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff Joy McFarland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully prays as follows: (A) That Defendants be summoned to appear and answer herein; Page 9of11 Joy McFarland, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al. U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) 3:16-CV-_ __ Original Complaint-Class Action Case 3:16-cv-00100-JLH Document 1 Filed 04/11/16 Page 10 of 11 (8) For certification of and notice to the collective class and Rule 23 class as further defined and determined by motions practice; (C) For an order entering judgment in Plaintiff's and similarly situated line workers' favor against each Defendant, jointly and severally; (D) For declaratory judgment that Defendants' practices alleged herein violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq., and attendant regulations at 29 C.F.R. §516 et seq.; (E) For declaratory judgment that Defendants' practices alleged herein violate the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-201, et seq. and attendant regulations; (F) For damages for all unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq., and attendant regulations at 29 C.F.R. §516 et seq.; (G) For damages for all unpaid overtime compensation under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-201, et seq. and attendant regulations; (H) For liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 US.C. §201, et seq., and attendant regulations at 29 C.F.R. §516 et seq., in an amount equal to all unpaid overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated during the applicable statutory period; (I) For liquidated damages pursuant to the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-201, et seq. and attendant regulations; (J) For an equitable tolling of the statutes of limitations due to violations of applicable laws by Defendants; (K) For an order directing Defendants to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs connected with this action; (L) For such other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary, just and proper. Page 10of11 Joy Mcfarland, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al. U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) 3:16-CV-_ __ Original Complaint-Class Action Respectfully submitted, PLAINTIFF JOY McFARLAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford, Ste. 411 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 By:.J6shua West Ark. Bar No. 2012121 west@sanfordlawfirm.com and: Jos~ro Ark. Bar No. 2001037 josh@sanfordlawfirm.com Page 11of11 Joy McFarland, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al. U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ark.) 3:16-CV-_ __ Original Complaint-Class Action

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 352 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
04/11/2016
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Joy McFarland(Fee of $400 received; Summons issued and returned to Plaintiff's counsel for service).
1
Civil Cover Sheet)(jak
1 Attachment
2
04/18/2016
RECEIPT FILED: $ 400.00, receipt number LIT056291.
3
04/29/2016
NOTICE of Appearance by O. John Norris, III on behalf of Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Nestle USA Inc (Norris, O.)
4
05/06/2016
Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint by Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Nestle USA Inc (Norris, O.)
5
05/09/2016
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT, 4. Accordingly, Defendants shall file a responsive pleading on or before June 10, 2016. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 5/9/2016.
6
06/03/2016
ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Nestle USA Inc.(Norris, O.)
7
06/03/2016
Corporate Disclosure Statement (Rule 7.1) by Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Nestle USA Inc (Norris, O.)
8
06/03/2016
INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Rule 26(f) Conference to occur by 8/11/2016. Rule 26(f) Report due by 8/25/2016. Proposed bench trial date the week of 9/25/2017 in Jonesboro before Judge J. Leon Holmes. Signed at the direction of the Court.
9
07/05/2016
NOTICE of Appearance by Eric R. Magnus on behalf of Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Nestle USA Inc
10
07/05/2016
NOTICE of Appearance by Justin R. Barnes on behalf of Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Nestle USA Inc
11
08/01/2016
MOTION to Certify Class Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA by Joy McFarland
1
Exhibit 1: Proposed Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit
2
Exhibit 2: Proposed Consent to Join Collective Action
3
Exhibit 3: Proposed Texts of Electronic Transmissions
4
Exhibit 4: Proposed Electronic Consent to Join Collective Action
5
Exhibit 5: Proposed Reminder Postcard
6
Exhibit 6: Declaration of Attorney Josh Sanford
7
Exhibit 7: Declaration of Joy McFarland
7 Attachments
12
08/01/2016
BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 11 Motion to Certify Class, filed by Joy McFarland.
13
08/15/2016
Joint MOTION to Stay Deadlines Pending Resolution of Settlement Discussions by Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Nestle USA Inc
14
08/16/2016
ORDER granting 13 Motion to Stay deadlines. The existing deadlines are hereby stayed, including the deadlines for the defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to certify class, the parties' Rule 26 conference, and the submission of a joint preliminary planning report. This stay will be in effect through 9/9/2016. Should the parties be unable to settle this matter by then, they must either file a status report and request an extension of the stay if settlement is feasible or inform the Court that further negotiations would not be productive. In the latter event, the parties must submit their Rule 26(f) report within seven days after the stay is lifted, and defendants must file a response to the plaintiff's motion to certify class within twenty-one days after the stay is lifted. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 8/16/2016.
15
09/09/2016
STATUS REPORT and Motion to Extend Stay Pending Resolution of Settlement Discussions by Joy McFarland.
16
09/09/2016
ORDER granting 15 Motion to Extend the stay. The stay is extended up to and including 10/10/2016. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 9/9/2016.
17
10/10/2016
Joint MOTION to Stay re 16 Order Extend Stay Pending Resolution of Settlement Discussions and Joint Status Report by Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Nestle USA Inc
18
10/11/2016
ORDER granting 17 the parties' motion to extend the stay; and extending the stay up to and including 11/10/2016. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 10/11/2016.
19
11/11/2016
STATUS REPORT and Motion to Extend Stay Pending Resolution of Settlement Discussions by Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Nestle USA Inc.
20
11/14/2016
ORDER granting the 19 Motion to Extend the stay. The stay is extended up to and including 12/12/2016. Should the parties be unable to settle this matter by 12/12/2016, they must either file a status report and request an extension of stay if settlement is feasible or inform the Court that further negotiations would not be productive. If they determine that further negotiations would not be productive, the parties must file their Rule 26(f) report within seven days after the stay is lifted, and the defendants must file a response to the plaintiff's motion to certify class within fourteen days after the stay is lifted. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 11/14/2016.
21
12/08/2016
STATUS REPORT (Joint) and Motion to Extend Stay Pending Mediation by Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Nestle USA Inc.
22
12/09/2016
ORDER granting 21 Motion to Stay deadlines pending mediation. By 1/27/2017 the parties must either inform the Court that this matter has been settled or inform the Court that further negotiations would not be productive. The parties will then file their Rule 26(f) report within 7 days after the stay is lifted and defendants will file their response to the motion to certify class within 14 days after the stay is lifted. The Court will enter its final scheduling order after the Rule 26(f) report is filed. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 12/9/2016.
23
01/23/2017
NOTICE of Settlement by Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Nestle USA Inc
24
03/14/2017
Joint MOTION to Approve/Approval of Settlement Agreement by Joy McFarland
1
Exhibit 1: Fully Executed Settlement Agreement, Claim Form, Order of Preliminary Approval, Notice
1 Attachment
25
03/15/2017
LETTER/ORDER. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 3/15/2017.
26
03/22/2017
STATUS REPORT regarding ECF No. 25 by Joy McFarland.
27
04/05/2017
Joint MOTION to Approve/Approval (Amended) of Class and Collective Acton Settlement and Notice to the Settlement Class by Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Nestle USA Inc
1
Exhibit 1--Settlement Agreement and Exhibits
1 Attachment
28
04/05/2017
Joint MOTION to Seal Document (Exhibit E to Settlement Agreement) by Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Nestle USA Inc
29
04/10/2017
ORDER granting 28 Motion to Seal Document. The parties will be permitted to file conventionally under seal a copy of Exhibit E to the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 4/10/2017.
30
04/17/2017
SEALED Document
31
04/18/2017
ORDER OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL. The Court grants the 27 Amended Motion and preliminary finds that the parties' class-wide settlement is fair and reasonable. For purposes of settlement, a Settlement Class is certified. 24 Motion is denied as moot. A final fairness hearing will be held on August 22, 2017, at 1:15 PM, at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 615 South Main St., Room 312, Jonesboro, Arkansas. Counsel for the Parties must file motion papers for final approval of all terms of the Settlement Agreement no later than 14 days before the final fairness hearing. This action is stayed pending the Court's ruling on the settlement at the final approval hearing. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 4/18/2017.
32
05/02/2017
ORDER denying as moot 11 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 5/2/2017.
33
08/08/2017
Joint MOTION to Approve/Approval of Settlement Agreement by Joy McFarland
1
Document Declaration of Josh Sanford (Docket text modified on 8/9/2017 to remove reference to the proposed order) (jak
1 Attachment
08/09/2017
NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re 33 Joint MOTION to Approve/Approval of Settlement Agreement. CORRECTION: The docket text was modified to indicate the proposed order was filed as an attachment to docket entry 33 in error. (Text entry; no document attached.)
34
08/22/2017
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Leon Holmes: FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING held in Jonesboro on Tuesday, 8/22/2017. Josh Sanford present for plaintiff; Eric Magnus present for defendants. (Court Reporter Genie Power)
35
08/23/2017
ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL. The Parties' class-wide Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable and is hereby approved. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 8/23/2017.
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.