UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO: 20-23223-CIV-BLOOM

DRAGAN JANICIJEVIC, on his own 

behalf and on behalf of all other similarly 

situated crew members working aboard 

BAHAMAS PARADISE CRUISE LINE 

vessels

Plaintiffs,

v. 

CLASSICA CRUISE OPERATOR, LTD., 

PARADISE CRUISE LINE OPERATOR 

LTD. INC., a/k/a PARADISE CRUISE LINE 

OPERATOR LTD. d/b/a BAHAMAS 

PARADISE CRUISE LINE, BPCL 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a BAHAMAS 

PARADISE CRUISE LINE, LLC.,

Defendants.

/

NOTICE OF INTERVENING ELEVENTH CIRCUIT RULING 

REGARDING PROPSED INCENTIVE AWARDS AND AGREEMENT TO CHANGE 

PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE AS A RESULT

Plaintiff, Class Counsel, and Defendants (the “Parties”) hereby acknowledge that, after the 

original Stipulation of Settlement and Release was executed (ECF No. 17-1), a panel of the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, 

LLC, No. 18-12344, 2020 WL 5553312 (11th Cir. Sept. 17, 2020). In NPAS, the Eleventh Circuit 

held that all service awards for class action representatives are impermissible.1

 

1 Plaintiff’s Counsel have been dealing with this issue now in other pending class actions where 

preliminary approval has already been granted, and like this case, where preliminary approval is 

pending. NPAS will not become binding precedent until issuance of the mandate (which has not 

yet occurred, nor has rehearing en banc yet occurred). See, e.g., Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. 

County of Los Angeles, 725 F.3d 1194, 1203–04 (9th Cir. 2013), certiorari denied, 572 U.S. 1100 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 1 of 5
- 2 –

Based upon this ruling, Plaintiff and Class Counsel hereby represent and agree that a 

service award cannot be approved for Plaintiff, unless the ruling in NPAS prohibiting service 

awards is reversed, vacated, or overruled. 

Should that not occur prior to Plaintiff’s deadline specified in the Stipulation for requesting 

a service award, the Parties respectfully submit that this Court could still approve the settlement 

and all of its terms, but also deny approval of specifically a service award and retain “jurisdiction 

for the limited purpose of revisiting the denial of service awards if the Eleventh Circuit holds a 

rehearing en banc in Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC and reverses its decision,” or another Eleventh 

Circuit decision overrules NPAS. See Metzler, et al. v. Medical Management International, Inc., 

et al., 2020 WL 5994537 (M.D. Fla. October 9, 2020) (reserving jurisdiction to award service 

awards if NPAS is reversed). Class Counsel could then “move for reconsideration upon such a 

reversal” up to and including the date the Second Gross Settlement Fund payment (as defined in 

the Settlement Agreement) is due to be paid. Id.

Based on this representation and agreement, the parties have agreed to modify paragraph 

18 of the proposed Class Notice (ECF No. 17-1 at Ex. 2) as follows:

 

(2014) (explaining that “[n]o opinion of this circuit becomes final until the mandate issues”) (citing 

Carver v. Lehman, 558 F.3d 869, 878 (9th Cir.2009) (“[U]ntil the mandate issues, an opinion is 

not fixed as settled Ninth Circuit law, and reliance on the opinion is a gamble.” (citation omitted));

see also Fed R.App. P. 41(c), 1998 Adv. Comm. Note (“A court of appeals’ judgment or order is 

not final until issuance of the mandate[.]”)). See also Key Enters. of Del., Inc. v. Venice Hosp., 9 

F.3d 893, 898 (11th Cir. 1993) (“[B]ecause the panel’s mandate had not issued, the panel’s 

decision was never the ‘law of the case.’”); United States v. Foumai, 910 F.2d 617, 620 (9th 

Cir.1990) (explaining a “court of appeals may modify or revoke its judgment at any time prior to 

issuance of the mandate, sua sponte or by motion of the parties”). Appellees in NPAS have 

indicated their intention to seek rehearing en banc.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 2 of 5
- 3 –

The original Section 18 reads as follows:

18. How Will The Class Counsel Lawyers Be Paid?

Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys’ fees and expenses up to $262,500.00, and a case 

contribution award of $5,000.00 paid to Settling Plaintiff Dragan Janicijevic for his time and effort 

in the matter. The Court may award less than these amounts.

The attorneys’ fees and expenses and the case contribution shall come from the Settlement Fund. 

Defendants have agreed not to oppose the applications by Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees and 

expenses or the case contribution award to Settling Plaintiff that do not exceed those amounts.

The Parties hereby amend Section 18 of the Class Notice by interlineation to read as follows:

18. How Will The Class Counsel Lawyers Be Paid?

Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys’ fees and expenses up to $262,500.00, and a case 

contribution award of $5,000.00 paid to Settling Plaintiff Dragan Janicijevic for his time and effort 

in the matter. The Court may award less than these amounts.

The attorneys’ fees and expenses and the case contribution shall come from the Settlement Fund. 

Defendants have agreed not to oppose the applications by Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees and 

expenses or the case contribution award to Settling Plaintiff that do not exceed those amounts.

Following execution of the Settlement, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 

Circuit issued an opinion holding that case contribution awards for class representatives were 

impermissible. Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 2020 WL 5553312 (11th Cir. 2020). In light of this 

opinion, the Parties have agreed that the Court may approve all of the terms of the settlement, while also 

denying the request for a case contribution award, but Class Counsel can request the Court reserve 

jurisdiction to reconsider the issue of a case contribution award if NPAS is reversed, vacated, or overruled

before the final date of the completion of Net Settlement Fund payments. Class Counsel will file with the 

Court their request for attorneys’ fees and expenses and any request for service awards on or before 

MONTH DAY, YEAR, which will then be posted on www.__________________.com/[[ ]].

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 3 of 5
- 4 –

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request the Court use the above interlineated 

language for its consideration in granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement in this action.

Date: October 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Adam Moskowitz

Adam Moskowitz, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 984280

Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com

Howard M. Bushman, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0364230

Email: howard@moskowitz-law.com

The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC

2 Alhambra Plaza

Suite 601

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Telephone: 305 740-1423

Counsel for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Catherine J. MacIvor

Jeffrey E. Foreman 

Florida Bar No. 240310 

jforeman@fflegal.com

Catherine J. MacIvor 

Florida Bar. No. 932711 

cmacivor@fflegal.com

Foreman Friedman, PA

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2300 

2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 

33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6555 

Counsel for Defendants

By:/s/ Michael Winkleman 

Michael A. Winkleman 

Florida Bar No. 36719 

mwinkleman@lipcon.com 

Daniel W. Grammes 

Florida Bar No. 1010507 

dgrammes@lipcon.com 

Andrew S. Freedman 

Florida Bar No. 091087 

afreedman@lipcon.com 

Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. 

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776 

2 South Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone No.: (305) 373-3016 

Facsimile No.: (305) 373-6204 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 4 of 5
- 5 –

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed on October 13, 2020

with the Clerk by using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all 

attorneys of record.

s/ Adam M. Moskowitz

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 5 of 5