Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-03657/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-03657-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Unopposed Application for Attorneys’ Fees and 

Costs and Service Awards (Doc. 272) and Motion for Approval of the Class Action 

Settlement (Doc. 274). For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motions. 

On October 21, 2016, Maribel Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) filed this collective action on 

behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees of Direct Energy Business 

Marketing LLC and its affiliates (“Defendants”), alleging that Defendants failed to pay 

hourly wages, commissions/incentive wages, and overtime wages in violation of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (“FLSA”). (Doc. 1) Plaintiff also alleged 

violations of the Arizona Wage Statutes, A.R.S. §§ 23-351, -352, -353, and -355 and 

requested class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (“Rule 23”). 

(Doc. 1) 

On March 8, 2019, after participating in extensive discovery in this case as well as 

arms-length negotiations, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement. (Doc. 251) On July 

25, 2019, the parties filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed FLSA Collective 

Maribel Alvarez, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Direct Energy Business Marketing LLC, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-16-03657-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-03657-SPL Document 282 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Action and Rule 23 Class Action Settlement. (Doc. 266) The Court granted the Motion and 

preliminarily approved the settlement on November 11, 2019. (Doc. 267)

The parties’ agreement states that Defendants shall provide for a total gross 

settlement amount of $1.3 million, $856,041 of which is not subject to reversion. (Doc. 

274 at 3) In the Order preliminarily approving the settlement, the Court: (1) conditionally 

certified the Rule 23 class for settlement purposes; (2) confirmed the appointment of 

Maribel Alvarez as the class representative; (3) confirmed the appointment of Ty Frankel 

and Patricia Syverson as class counsel; and (4) approved the notice of settlement to all 

prospective class members pursuant to Rule 23 and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.1

(Doc. 267 at 5-6) In November of 2019, the Settlement Administrator sent the notice of 

settlement to each prospective class member, and the deadline for objections ended on 

January 16, 2020. (Doc. 274 at 3, 5-6) To date, 23 of the 25 FLSA Opt-in class members 

have submitted claims and 185 of the 893 Rule 23 class members have submitted claims.

(Doc. 279 at 2) There are no objections to the settlement. (Doc. 274 at 6)

On January 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Unopposed Application for Attorneys’ Fees 

and Costs and Service Awards. (Doc. 272) On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Motion 

for Approval of the Class Action Settlement. (Doc. 274) On January 30, 2020, the Court 

held a final fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e). (Doc. 275) At the hearing, the Court 

ordered that: (1) Plaintiff’s counsel submit an itemized billing statement in support of their 

request for attorneys’ fees and costs; and (2) the parties submit a joint notice of settlement 

outlining the final accounting calculations under the settlement agreement. (Doc. 275) The 

parties timely submitted the requested documents. (Docs. 276, 279) The Court has read 

and considered the settlement agreement, the pending motions, and the record in this case.

The Court finds that, in consideration of the almost four years of litigation and the reasons 

stated below, the settlement agreement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in 

the best interest of the class members. Accordingly,

1 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, and 1711-1715.

Case 2:16-cv-03657-SPL Document 282 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Application for Attorneys’ Fees and 

Costs and Service Awards (Doc. 272) and Motion for Approval of the Class Action 

Settlement (Doc. 274) are granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

1. For settlement purposes only, the Court certifies the following Settlement

Classes:

a. “Rule 23 Class Members” includes Direct Energy employees who worked

as customer service representatives at an Arizona Direct Energy call center

in Arizona from October 21, 2013 to August 30, 2018 and whose names are

set forth in an exhibit to the Settlement Agreement.

b. “FLSA Opt-in Class Members” means the current and former Customer 

Service Representatives who worked at a Direct Energy call center in 

Arizona who validly opted into this Lawsuit and who did not subsequently 

opt out and whose names are set forth in an exhibit to the Settlement 

Agreement.

2. For settlement purposes only, the Court appoints the following attorneys to

act as Settlement Class Counsel: Ty Frankel and Patricia Syverson of Bonnett, 

Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.

3. For settlement purposes only, the Court appoints Maribel Alvarez as Class 

Representative.

4. The Court finds that notice to the Settlement Classes was provided in accordance 

with the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order. (Doc. 267) This notice, in form, 

method, and content, fully complied with the requirements of Rule 23 and due 

process, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and 

constituted sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice of the settlement.

Case 2:16-cv-03657-SPL Document 282 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. The Court finds that the settlement of this action, on the terms and conditions set 

forth in the Settlement Agreement, is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, 

adequate, and in the best interest of the class members, especially in light of: “the 

strength of the Plaintiff’s case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of 

further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the 

amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the 

proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental 

participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.” See 

In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, and Prods. Liab. Litig., 

895 F.3d 597, 611 n.18 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 

1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)).

6. The Settlement Agreement, which is outlined in Docket Numbers 266-1 and 279,

shall be deemed incorporated herein, is finally approved and shall be consummated 

in accordance with the terms and provisions thereof, except as amended by any order 

issued by this Court. All terms of the Settlement Agreement are approved by this 

Final Approval Order. The fact that this Final Approval Order specifically identifies 

or summarily recapitulates some, but not other, provisions of the Settlement 

Agreement does not modify any provision of the Settlement Agreement, nor does it 

elevate or demote any provision vis á vis any other provision, nor does it create an 

inference in that regard.

7. The Parties are directed to consummate the Settlement Agreement in accordance 

with its terms. The Parties and any and all Settlement Class Members who did not 

timely exclude themselves from the Settlement Class are bound by the terms and

conditions of the Settlement Agreement.

8. By operation of this Final Approval Order, the Releasing Parties release

and forever discharge the Released Parties from the Released Claims, and the 

Case 2:16-cv-03657-SPL Document 282 Filed 03/03/20 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Released Parties release and forever discharge Plaintiff and Settlement Class 

Counsel, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

9. This Order is not, and shall not be construed as, an admission by Defendant of 

any liability or wrongdoing in this or in any other proceeding.

10. The Court makes the following awards pursuant to the Settlement Agreement:

a. $132,602.03 as payment for the FLSA Opt-in Class Members who timely 

submitted claims.

b. $152,804.23 as payment for the Rule 23 Class Members who timely 

submitted claims. 

c. $25,000 as payment for the administration of the Settlement Agreement.

d. $38,500 as incentive awards to Plaintiff Alvarez and certain FLSA Opt-in 

Class Members, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

e. $624,829 as attorneys’ fees and costs to Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & 

Balint, P.C.

f. Any additional outstanding costs to be paid from Defendants’ reversionary

allotment. 

11. The Court finds that the parties’ agreement to include a reversionary allotment

for Defendants is justified in this case. Members of each class are set to receive at 

least thirty percent of their estimated damages. (Doc. 274 at 9) This amount is 

consistent with other cases involving the underpayment of wages. See Quintana v. 

HealthPlanOne LLC, No. CV-18-02169-PHX-RM, 2019 WL 3342339, at *3 (D. 

Ariz. July 25, 2019) (finding settlement of wage and hour class action for “one-half 

or one-third of the total possible recovery” to be reasonable). Additionally, the 

Case 2:16-cv-03657-SPL Document 282 Filed 03/03/20 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reversionary allotment represents only twenty-five percent of the total settlement 

fund. Therefore, the Court finds that the reversionary fund was reasonably included 

in the Settlement Agreement. 

12. Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to reasonable

extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.

13. Without affecting the finality of this Order, The Court hereby retains continuing 

and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties and all matters relating to this action 

and/or the Settlement Agreement, including the administration, interpretation, 

construction, effectuation, enforcement, and consummation of the Settlement 

Agreement and this Order.

14. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is hereby dismissed with prejudice without costs 

to any party, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2020.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-03657-SPL Document 282 Filed 03/03/20 Page 6 of 6