UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFFLORIDA

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

Plaintiff,

v. 

CLASSICA CRUISE OPERATOR, LTD., 

PARADISE CRUISE LINE OPERATOR 

LTD. INC., 

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC

2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Telephone: 305 740-1423

Adam Moskowitz

Howard Bushman

Joseph Kaye

and

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

Michael Winkleman

Daniel W. Grammes

Andrew S. Freedman

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 1 of 21
2

Plaintiff, Dragan Janicijevic, hereby files this unopposed, renewed Motion for Preliminary 

Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement and for Certification of the Settlement Class 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and states:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff initiated this action on August 4, 2020, alleging against Defendants, Classica

Cruise Line Operator, Ltd. and Paradise Cruise Line Operator, Ltd. Inc. (collectively “Paradise”), 

seven counts, including Jones Act Failure to repatriate, Wages and Penalties under 46 USC §§

10313 and 10504, Breach of Contract, Forced Labor and Peonage under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, 

Negligent Misrepresentation and False Imprisonment. [ECF 1]. The Parties agreed to mediate the 

case on August 18, 2020. In the discussions leading up to, and during, mediation, Defendants 

provided factual information and confirmatory discovery to Plaintiff demonstrating their strong 

defenses, including some factual inaccuracies on which some of Plaintiff’s claims were premised. 

After lengthy discussions prior to mediation, a twelve (12) hour mediation and additional extensive 

negotiations during the week following mediation, the Parties were able to achieve a settlement 

that compensated the settlement class to nearly one hundred percent (100%) of the wages to which 

they are entitled pursuant to the viable claims in the Complaint.

Based on the confirmatory discovery and class action settlement, Plaintiff moved the Court 

for an order granting preliminary approval of the class [ECF 21] but did not file an amended 

complaint to better state the allegations with the actual facts ascertained after discovery. 

Additionally, Defendants did not file defensive motions or an answer and affirmative defenses and 

neither party filed the confirmatory discovery and evidence demonstrating Defendants’ strong 

defenses and the lack of factual basis for many of Plaintiff’s claims. As a consequence, at the 

November 5, 2020 preliminary approval hearing, this Court discussed certain concerns the Court 

had regarding the settlement, including information that should be in the court record and the 

differences between putative class members’ claims that might preclude certification under Rule 

23(b). This Court, therefore, denied Plaintiff’s preliminary approval motion without prejudice so 

that the Parties could continue to work on the Court’s concerns and requests. [ECF 29].

The Parties gave careful consideration to each and every comment made by the Court.

Plaintiff has since filed a Third Amended Complaint that much more accurately reflects the claims 

sought to be certified and the withdrawal of claims that were proven after discovery to be factually 

inaccurate. [ECF 32–34]. Defendants have also filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration [ECF 35],

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 2 of 21
3

their Answer and Affirmative Defenses [ECF 36] and provided the detailed declaration of Kevin 

Sheehan with corresponding evidence addressing some of these factual inaccuracies in the

pleadings, which declaration is attached to this Motion as Exhibit 1, The mediation and 

Defendant’s confirmatory discovery declaration provided Plaintiff with sufficient information and 

evidence to indicate that many of the allegations were not accurate and certainly explains why this 

proposed Settlement is an excellent opportunity for all settlement class members, in light of: (1) 

the actual damages to the proposed Class for the viable claims, and (2) the very strong arbitration 

motion and other defenses. It was certainly the Parties’ fault for not presenting this full picture to 

the Court when the Parties first sought preliminary approval.

The Parties, as suggested, reconvened their Settlement discussions and submit to the Court 

this enhanced and much clarified proposed Settlement for preliminary approval. The 

enhancements and clarifications include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. An upfront payment of the entire Settlement amount, instead of a phased payment;

2. A Third Amended Complaint that accurately reflects the claims sought to be certified;

3. A sworn declaration from Defendants explaining the relevant background facts and 

information concerning the crew and how the COVID-19 pandemic directly caused a 

dramatic and unprecedented financial burden on Defendants;

4. The removal of the lien on the subject vessel;

5. Certification is sought as to breach of contract only;

6. Clarifying that while all crewmembers may have slightly different contracts, each 

contract has the same two wage and severance clauses that are the subject of the Class 

Action Settlement;

1

7. Clarifying the class definition to make clear that Class Members need only have worked 

on either ship, not both, for at least one day during the settlement class period and the 

precise relief to be certified;

8. Clarifying the Wage Type 2 payments are a minimum of $1,000;

9. Capping the notice and administration costs at $10,000, which will be paid from the 

 1 Paradise used two different contracts for crew during the class period, both of which had the 

exact same wage clauses and severance clauses. Compare Plaintiff’s employment contract attached 

as Exhibit 2 at paragraphs 10 and 21 with exemplar crew contract attached as Exhibit 3 at 

paragraphs 10 and 22. The clauses that are the subject of class certification are virtually identical.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 3 of 21
4

class counsels’ attorneys’ fees and costs award approved by the Court; and

10. Even though this pandemic posed, hopefully, a once-in-a-lifetime extraordinary 

event that caused the U.S. Government to order all cruise lines to stop sailing, 

Defendants have agreed to add specific relief in the form of administrative policy⸺ as 

the Court suggested⸺ to ensure that should such a catastrophic event re-occur, there is 

a mechanism to work through it with the crew so that the issues raised in this matter do 

not occur again.

Simply put, the class will receive “100 percent of their possible damages”, in that there are two 

types of damages that will be recoverable under the proposed Settlement to the Class to share in 

the $612,500 Class Fund:

2

▪ (1st Category/ Subclass): Each of the 276 Class Members are required to be paid 2-

months’ severance pursuant to their contracts unless their contract was due to expire 

within thirty (30) days of termination. The employment contracts contain an identical 

severance clause (even if and when the crew member was immediately sent home) and 

the average 2-month severance is $1,858.00 (for a total of $512,808.00), and 

▪ (2nd Category/Subclass): Discovery confirmed that there were only 6 crew members 

that continued to perform some “services” or “work” (such as a cook, etc.) during the 

class period, for which they have not been paid, which is not more than a few hundred 

dollars each (for a total of no more than $5,000).

While the severance amount may vary by crewmember (depending on the rate of each 

crewmember’s pay and if a crewmember was in the last month of his or her contract when that

crewmember would not be entitled to severance pursuant to his or her contract), a simple 

mathematical calculation can be easily accomplished by a review of Defendants’ records to 

confirm the amount of each claim. As for payment to those few crew who worked, that too can be 

easily calculated based on the contracts.

This Settlement is the product of exhaustive negotiations, including Zoom and telephonic 

mediation sessions before nationally recognized mediator Rodney Max, Esq., which will provide 

each and every crew member approximately 100% of the damages that they could have received 

 2 Class Counsel is seeking approval from the Court for 30% in attorneys’ fees and costs, which 

totals $262,500, to be paid by Defendants, without having any effect on the $612,500 set aside 

specifically for the recovery to the Class.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 4 of 21
5

in this litigation if they recovered 100% of their damages at any certified trial with all of the 

ensuing risks, including the real potential stay or dismissal of this matter in favor of arbitration as 

the Defendants contend is required in this context and the other defenses raised by Defendants.

[ECF 35-36]. The Defendants’ substantially same arbitration clause has been upheld by this Court

on numerous occasions, under these same facts and while the crew would eventually receive 

compensation through arbitration, class action relief is a much faster and better way in which to 

provide it to the entire putative class. See, e.g., Maglana v. Celebrity Cruises Inc., No. 1:20-22133-

CIV, 2020 WL 6588561 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2020) (Martinez, J.) (granting motion to compel 

arbitration and dismissing action).

Under the proposed Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release 

(“Settlement Agreement”), the Defendants will create a common fund of $875,000.00 to resolve 

this dispute which will be used to make cash payments to crew members for contractual severance 

and wages for time worked without pay. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests entry of an Order granting 

preliminary approval of the class action settlement as set forth in the Parties’ Settlement 

Agreement (finding that the proposed settlement “falls within the range of reasonableness”), 

preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for settlement purposes, and approving notice to all 

Settlement Class Members for their comment. Defendants dispute the factual and legal claims 

made by Plaintiff, have agreed to the Settlement Class only, but disagree that the Class could 

otherwise be certified. See Defendants’ position on the lawsuit in the attached Settlement 

Agreement, which is incorporated and adopted herein as if set forth in full for purposes of brevity. 

See Exhibit 4. Defendants do not oppose the relief sought herein based on the Settlement. Id.

The Settlement Agreement’s benefits were the result of rigorous, arm’s-length negotiations 

by the Parties and their counsel under the direction of a distinguished mediator, Rodney Max, Esq. 

See Declaration of Rodney Max dated September 8, 2020 (hereinafter “Max. Decl.”) (attached as 

Exhibit 5). Notice of this Settlement will be disseminated to Class Members via direct mail, email, 

and the establishment of a settlement website.

Undersigned counsel are well-positioned to evaluate and negotiate this Settlement because 

they have been investigating and litigating seafarer wage claims for many years. Indeed, Lipcon, 

Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A., are experienced and capable in the field of maritime claims 

for cruise ship passenger and crew member injuries and lost wages owed to crew members,

including class actions, and have successfully represented claimants in other litigation of this 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 5 of 21
6

nearly exact nature. Further, the Moskowitz Law Firm PLLC, is a nationally recognized 

preeminent class action law firm representing plaintiffs against insurance companies, mortgage 

companies, cruise lines, consumer product sellers, and spearheaded the litigation and resolution of 

over 30 nationwide class actions recovering over 4.2 billion dollars for 5.2 million homeowners 

against the major mortgage providers in the country. Further, the informal discovery in this action 

included the production of financial data and information related to the Defendants’ business 

practices. Plaintiff and the Settlement Class faced significant hurdles in litigating their claims to 

resolution, including arbitration. As such, and given the immediate and substantial benefits the 

Settlement will provide, Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that there is no question that the Settlement 

is “within the range of reasonableness” and warrants preliminary approval.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This Class Action lawsuit alleged Defendants’ failure to pay severance and wages to those 

crew who worked pursuant to the contractual agreements with crewmembers who were not paid 

due to the extreme financial hardship caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented cruise

ships from sailing. Plaintiff claims that pursuant to identical wage and severance clauses in 

Plaintiff’s and the other hotel department crew’s employment contracts, Defendants are required 

to pay Plaintiff and the Class two months of wages as severance upon termination unless the 

crewmember was within thirty (30) days of the end of his or her contract. When the government 

took the extraordinary step of halting all sailings due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendants could not pay Plaintiff and the Class severance and wages for the small 

amount of work performed by a handful of employees (six), that were still on the Grand 

Celebration. After filing the original Complaint, and based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s previous 

experience in successfully settling class claims against cruise operators, the Parties agreed in 

August 2020 to commence an early mediation. The Parties retained Rodney Max, and began a 

series of telephonic mediation sessions, including an all-day, nine hour Zoom mediation session 

on August 18, 2020. The Parties could not reach a resolution on August 18, but further discussions 

continued and resulted in the revised class action settlement before the Court.

Plaintiff originally brought multiple claims for repatriation, negligent misrepresentation, 

forced labor and false imprisonment as well as expanded claims for lack of payment of wages. As 

discussed above, Defendants contested the factual and legal predicate for Plaintiff’s claims and the 

number of class members at issue. Through the mediation process, Defendants provided evidence 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 6 of 21
7

of Defendants’ actions regarding many of Plaintiff’s original allegations regarding repatriation, 

negligent misrepresentation, forced labor and false imprisonment, as well as the expanded nonpayment of wages claims. Additionally, discovery showed that far fewer Class Members were 

affected than originally suspected. Defendants had previously provided Plaintiffs with a 

declaration, but have since recently formalized and detailed its evidence in a comprehensive 

declaration that is now provided to the Court. See Exhibit 1. Defendants have further asserted that 

individual arbitrations would be required and a class would not be susceptible to certification for 

claims (now withdrawn) for many of the reasons addressed by the Court at the preliminary 

approval hearing. See Exhibit 4; [ECF 35–36]. While Plaintiffs would contest the arbitration 

demands, it would be a difficult hurdle for Plaintiff and the class to overcome.

Among other things, specifically, Defendants maintain that they went to extraordinary 

lengths to repatriate crew members, but were severely constrained by CDC restrictions, 

immigration restrictions, and general safety issues. See Exhibit 1 at ¶ 22 (“Countries were closing 

borders, airports were closing, flights were canceled, and the way in which crew were to be 

repatriated was suddenly and severely impacted by the various countries where crew were able to 

disembark passenger cruise vessels.”). Further, not all Class Members were on the subject vessels 

for the entire class period. For example, the named Plaintiff signed off the ship on June 21, 2020.

Id. at ¶ 44. Other putative Class Members were repatriated between March and August, depending 

on government restrictions, flights and other restrictions. Id. at ¶ 34. Finally, the number of Class 

Members at issue were not the estimated thousands of crew members, but instead 276 crew 

members who were not paid their contractual two-month severance payments, as well as a handful 

of Crew Members (6) that performed some work and were not paid. See [ECF 36] at ¶ 25. 

Therefore, Plaintiff based his settlement demands upon the confirmed discovery to avoid 

protracted and expensive litigation and arbitration, for settlement purposes only. Id. The Parties 

fully resolved this matter, after days of discussions, and executed a Term Sheet on August 21, 

2020. That same day, the Settling Parties announced their settlement and filed a joint motion to 

stay the case while the Settling Parties formalized their Settlement Agreement. [ECF 12]. Pursuant 

to the joint request to stay, the Court administratively closed this case on August 24, 2020 “without 

prejudice to the parties to file a settlement agreement for the Court’s consideration and/or 

appropriate dismissal documentation.” [ECF 13]. The Parties subsequently finalized and executed 

the Settlement Agreement and moved for preliminary approval.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 7 of 21
8

At the hearing on preliminary approval, because Defendants had yet to answer the 

Complaint, this Court had many appropriate questions and suggestions regarding the specifics of 

the proposed Settlement, and the reasons for the agreement to resolve this matter for the amounts 

suggested. Accordingly, the Court denied the request for preliminary approval without prejudice

[ECF 29] and requested further information and materials. Accordingly, on November 30, 2020, 

Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint detailing the allegations which corresponded to the 

confirmed discovery received to date. [ECF 34]. On December 11, 2020, Defendants filed a 

Motion to Compel Arbitration [ECF 35] and an Answer and affirmative defenses to the Complaint 

[ECF 36]. The Motion to Compel Arbitration is currently pending. The Parties have completed

further protracted negotiations and now are pleased to provide the Court with a revised proposed 

settlement, and with specific information to further support the fairness of the proposed Settlement. 

III. THE REVISED SETTLEMENT TERMS AND AGREEMENT

A. The Proposed Settlement Class 

All seafarer-employees who were physically present on the Grand Celebration for at 

least one day anytime between March 18, 2020 until August 20, 2020 and were (1)

terminated such that severance is due under their employment contracts and/or (2) were 

employed and performed a designated job at Defendants’ request. “Seafareremployees” shall not include deck and engine employees and independent contractors, 

Cruise Defendants’ corporate officers or corporate directors.

3

B. Monetary Relief

The Settlement Agreement affords members of the Settlement Class significant monetary 

relief. See Exhibit 4 at ¶ 2.45. A settlement fund in the amount of $875,000.00 will be created to 

provide cash payments to Settlement Class Members for contractual wages and for time worked 

without pay. The Settlement Fund will be allocated as follows: (1) first it will be used to pay any 

attorneys’ fee and expense award to Co-Lead Class Counsel (which will seek 30% for a total of 

$262,500) and any incentive award to Class Representative that are approved by this Court in 

accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and any and all administrative costs (the 

result is the “Net Settlement Fund”); (2) The Net Settlement Fund ($612,500) will be divided and 

distributed as individual allocations to the Settlement Class Members who do not opt out. If the 

claims received exceed the Net Settlement Fund, each Settlement Class Member shall have their 

 3 No deck and engine crew members went unpaid.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 8 of 21
9

amounts reduced pro rata. Any remaining Net Settlement Funds that remain after final approval 

and distribution to valid and approved class members shall revert to Defendants.

Confirmatory discovery has shown that this relief is close to 100% of the potential Class 

Member damages which could have been obtained at trial. The material records reveal that the 

average two months’ severance for each class member is $1,858.00, which multiplied by the 276 

crew member putative class members equals a maximum of $512,808.00. Additionally, there is 

a minimum of $1,000.00 per class member for any and all work performed on Defendants’ vessels 

during the claims period. Exhibit 4 at ¶ 4.3, “Wage Claim Type 2.” The confirmatory discovery 

revealed there is a small number of class members (6 crew employees) that should apply for Wage 

Claim Type 2. Accordingly, there is no question that the Settlement is “within the range of 

reasonableness” and warrants preliminary approval, especially in light of the pending Motion to 

Compel Arbitration, which would require multiple arbitrations. 

C. Release of Claims against Defendants

In exchange for the relief provided by the Settlement, members of the Settlement Class will 

release the Defendants, as well as all other entities included in the definition of “Released Parties” 

set forth in the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1 at ¶¶ 2.36 and 15), from:

Cruise Defendants and any and all of their respective past, present and future parents, 

subsidiaries, affiliated companies, corporations, divisions, joint ventures, and entities 

in which Cruise Defendants have a controlling interest, and any and all of their 

respective past, present and future officers, directors, managers, general and limited 

partners, members, principals, insurers, insureds, employers, employees, consultants, 

independent contractors, shareholders, attorneys, advisors, predecessors, successors, 

associates, related entities, servants, assigns, representatives and agents.

D. Class Notice

Class notice will be disseminated directly to Class Members via direct mail or email at the 

addresses provided by Defendants’ employment records at their last-known mailing address in the 

forms attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit 2 assuming it is approved by the Court. Id. 

¶¶ 2.27 and 7. The notice will be sent within thirty (30) days of the entry of the Preliminary 

Approval Order. Id. ¶ 7.1. The Settlement Administrator will also establish a website on which 

Settlement Class members may review the Settlement Agreement and its exhibits, and for those 

Class Members who must file a claim, the ability to file a Claim Form online. Id. ¶ 7.3. Settlement 

Class Members may opt out or object by following the prescribed process. Id. ¶ 1.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 9 of 21
10

Due to the fact that there are only approximately 276 crew members in the Settlement 

Class, to save the substantial costs of administration by a third party, the law firm of Foreman 

Friedman, P.A., will primarily administrate the settlement in good faith and Defendants will absorb 

that cost and with the participation and oversight of Co-Lead Class Counsel. If Defendants’ written 

or computer records conflict with information submitted by a claimant, counsel for both Parties 

shall in good faith attempt to resolve the conflict as they have done throughout the pendency of 

this matter. 

E. Administrative Procedures to Avoid a Repeat of the Subject of this Litigation

The Court commented at the hearing that it would be important for any proposed settlement 

to include injunctive relief, so that the Parties have a set plan if such an extraordinary event as a 

global pandemic were ever to occur again in the future that would prevent the company from 

operating. Accordingly, Defendants have now agreed to institute specific policies for the benefit 

of the Settlement Class and crew members. Id. ¶ 4.5. If a situation arises where the vessels are 

unable to sail with passengers (and therefore the crew would not be fulfilling the duties for which 

the shipowner bargained in the crew employment contracts), the shipowners may send a 

memorandum to the entire crew advising them of the facts concerning why the vessel cannot 

operate and requesting them to elect three crew representatives in good standing to discuss a 

resolution. The shipowner would also pick two crew representatives in good standing. At 

Defendants’ expense, these five crew members and the shipowners would retain a neutral federal 

court approved mediator who would mediate between the crew and management to negotiate a 

resolution of any wage issue, repatriation, or anything else that arises as a consequence of 

pandemic or other disaster that might prevent the ship from sailing. Once a resolution is reached 

and in writing, the mediator would go over the terms with the entire crew at a general meeting and 

a vote would be taken. If a resolution cannot be reached within eight (8) hours, the parties shall 

follow the current crew contracts in effect. Those who want to opt out, can be repatriated. If 

repatriation is not feasible (for example, in the case of ship quarantine or other government order) 

then the mediated agreement would have to address that specific scenario or the crew who would 

be repatriated when feasible to do so. Those who opt in, would then sign the new mediated 

agreement to temporarily replace their crew contracts. The mediated agreement contracts would 

revert back to the regular crew contract when the ship is able sail with passengers again.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 10 of 21
11

F. Class Counsel’s Fees and Expenses and Named Plaintiff’s Case Contribution Award

The Parties stipulate in the Settlement Agreement that The Moskowitz Law Firm PLLC

and Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkelman, P.A. will serve as Class Counsel. Id. ¶ 2.7. Class 

Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and expenses for all of the various law firms involved

shall not exceed 30% of just the monetary relief (not valuing the injunctive relief), or $262,500.

Id. ¶ 17.1. Defendants will also pay the named Plaintiff a service award if approved by the Court 

not to exceed $5,000.00.4 Id. ¶ 17.2. The Court may consider whether to approve these awards 

separate and apart from its analysis of the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.

Id. ¶¶ 17.1, 17.2.

G. Final Approval and Objections

Class members may object to the settlement no later than ninety (90) days after the 

Preliminary Approval Order. Id. ¶ 2.29. The Motion for Attorneys’ Fees shall be filed within 

seventy-five (75) days after the Preliminary Approval Order Id. ¶ 17.1. and the Parties shall 

respond to any objections no later than ten (10) days prior to the Final Approval Hearing Id. ¶ 10.7.

IV. THE COURT SHOULD ENTER AN ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE 

SETTLEMENT

Settlement “has special importance in class actions with their notable uncertainty, 

difficulties of proof, and length. Settlements of complex cases contribute greatly to the efficient 

use of judicial resources, and achieve the speedy resolution of justice[.]” Turner v. Gen. Elec. Co., 

2006 WL 2620275, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2006). For these reasons, “[p]ublic policy strongly 

favors the pretrial settlement of class action lawsuits.” In re U.S. Oil & Gas Litig., 967 F.2d 489, 

493 (11th Cir.1992). “Approval of a class action settlement is a two-step process.” Fresco v. Auto 

Data Direct, Inc., No. 03-cv-61063, 2007 WL 2330895, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).

Preliminary approval is the first step, requiring the Court to “make a preliminary determination on 

the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement terms.” Id. In the second step, after 

notice to the class and time and opportunity for absent class members to object or otherwise be 

heard, the court considers whether to grant final approval. Smith v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., 2010 WL 

2401149, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 15, 2010).

Under Rule 23(e), in weighing a grant of preliminary approval, district courts must 

determine whether “giving notice is justified by the parties' showing that the court will likely be

 4 See Section VI, infra.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 11 of 21
12

able to: (i) approve the proposal under Rule 23(e)(2); and (ii) certify the class for purposes of 

judgment on the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B)(i–ii) (emphasis added). Id.

The amended Rule 23(e)(2) requires courts to consider whether:

(a) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class;

(b) the proposal was negotiated at arm's length;

(c) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account:

i. the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal;

ii. the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the 

class, including the method of processing class-member claims, if 

required;

iii. the terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees, including timing of 

payment; and

iv. any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and

(d) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig., 330 

F.R.D. 11, 28 (E.D.N.Y. 2019).

Further, the standard for preliminary approval of a class action settlement is not high—a 

proposed settlement should be preliminarily approved if it falls “within the range of possible 

approval” or if there is “probable cause” to notify the class of the proposed settlement and “to hold 

a full-scale hearing on its fairness[.]” In re Mid-Atl. Toyota Antitrust Litig., 564 F. Supp. 1379, 

1384 (D. Md. 1983) (citation omitted). Applying this standard and the new standard of Rule 23, 

this settlement is an excellent one by any measure and should be preliminarily approved.

A. The Settlement Is the Product of Good Faith, Informed, and Arm’s-Length 

Negotiations among Experienced Counsel

At the preliminary approval stage, district courts consider whether the proposed settlement 

appears to be “‘the result of informed, good-faith, arms’-length negotiation between the parties 

and their capable and experienced counsel’ and not ‘the result of collusion[.]’” In re Checking 

Account Overdraft Litig., 830 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1341 (S.D. Fla. 2011). The settlement terms in 

this case are the product of significant give and take by the Settling Parties, and were negotiated 

at arm’s length. The Parties participated in mediation sessions with Rodney Max, Esq., a wellrespected mediator with significant experience resolving complex suits. Mr. Max and the Parties 

participated in mediation sessions in August 2020. (Max. Decl. ¶ 12). The very fact of Mr. Max’s 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 12 of 21
13

involvement weighs in favor of preliminary approval. See, e.g., Lobatz v. U.S. In re Educ. Testing 

Serv. Praxis Principles of Learning & Teaching, Grades 7-12 Litig., 447 F. Supp. 2d 612, 619-20 

(E.D. La. 2006) (use of court-appointed special master to oversee mediation evidenced procedural 

fairness of negotiating process).

The Parties’ extensive negotiations were also informed by considerable investigation, 

informal discovery by Class Counsel, and this Court’s comments and concerns. See Lipuma v. Am. 

Express Co., 406 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1316–17 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (approving settlement over objection 

and concluding that class counsel had sufficient information to evaluate fairness of the settlement 

based on informal discovery).. Documents were informally produced and have been carefully 

reviewed by Class Counsel. In advance of and during the mediation, Defendants provided Plaintiff

and Class Counsel with additional information concerning this Action, including Exhibit A.

B. The Settlement Falls Squarely within the Range of Reasonableness

As a result of this mediation process, the Settlement Agreement provides considerable 

monetary relief to the Settlement Class, and falls well within the range of possible approval. Under 

Rule 23(e)(2)(C), the relevant inquiry is whether the proposed settlement affords relief that “‘falls 

within th[e] range of reasonableness, [and] not whether it is the most favorable possible result of 

litigation.’” McWhorter v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2019 WL 9171207 *10 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 

1, 2019) (quoting Lazy Oil Co. v. Witco Corp., 95 F. Supp. 2d 290, 338 (W.D. Pa. 1997), aff’d, 

166 F.3d 581 (3d Cir. 1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Grant, 2019 WL 

367648, at *6; accord Great Neck Capital Appreciation Inv. P’ship, L.P. v. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P., 212 F.R.D. 400, 409–10 (E.D. Wis. 2002) (Because “[t]he 

determination of whether a settlement is reasonable is not susceptible to mathematical equation 

yielding a particularized sum ... [,] [t]he mere possibility that the class might receive more if the 

case were fully litigated is not a good reason for disapproving the settlement.”). As described 

above, this Settlement Agreement provides cash payments to affected crew members which 

represent almost 100% of their possible damages (if they are 100% successful at trial) and avoids 

costly individual arbitrations. The Settlement Agreement is unquestionably within the range.

1. Monetary Relief

The Settlement Agreement provides significant monetary benefits. All Settlement Class 

Members who make a claim are eligible for two types of payments. Wage Claim Type 1 claimants 

will receive payment of two (2) months crewmember wages at the rate of pay established by each 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 13 of 21
14

Settlement Class Member’s contract of employment in effect as of March 18, 2020 with the amount 

of the payment based on the salary listed on the employment contract for each Approved Claim.

Wage Claim Type 2 claimants will receive a minimum payment of $1,000.00 for each Approved 

Claim for any and all work performed on the Cruise Defendants’ vessels during the Claims Period 

for each approved claim. Id. ¶ 4.4. This represents almost a complete recovery for Class Members.

Federal courts hold that settlements providing the class with a percentage of the recovery sought 

in litigation are reasonable in light of the attendant risks of litigation. See, e.g., Johnson v. Brennan, 

No. 10-cv-4712, 2011 WL 4357376 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2011) (“[T]here is no reason, at least in 

theory, why a satisfactory settlement could not amount to a hundredth or even a thousandth part 

of a single percent of the potential recovery.”); Behrens v. Wometco Enters., Inc., 118 F.R.D. 534,

542–43 (S.D. Fla. 1988) (approving recovery of $.20 per share where desired recovery was $3.50 

a share because “the fact that a proposed settlement amounts to only a fraction of the possible 

recovery does not mean the settlement is inadequate or unfair”); Fisher Bros., Inc. v. Mueller Brass 

Co., 630 F. Supp. 493, 499 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (approving settlement providing recovery of 0.2% of 

sales). “Moreover, when settlement assures immediate payment of substantial amounts to class 

members, even if it means sacrificing speculative payment of a hypothetically larger amount years 

down the road, settlement is reasonable[.]” Johnson, 2011 WL 4357376, at *12. Plaintiff and the 

Settlement Class faced significant hurdles in litigating their claims to resolution, including 

overcoming Defendants’ defenses, including potential dismissal of these claims in favor of 

arbitration. Each Class Member stands to recover a significant percentage of the amount they 

would be entitled to as a result of the Settlement. The Settlement Agreement’s monetary recovery 

falls well within the range of reasonableness.

C. The Settlement Saves Plaintiff and the Settlement Class from Considerable 

Litigation Hurdles

Any evaluation of the Settlement benefits must be tempered by the recognition that any 

compromise involves concessions by the Parties. Indeed, “the very essence of a settlement is 

compromise, ‘a yielding of absolutes and an abandoning of highest hopes.’” Officers for Civil 

Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 624 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). Had litigation 

continued, Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members would have risked not prevailing on their 

claims, having to proceed in arbitration and/or risk the uncertainty of appeals. Additionally, the 

Settlement provides relief to the Settlement Class much more quickly.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 14 of 21
15

D. Class Counsel Believes the Settlement Is Reasonable

Significant weight should be attributed to the belief of experienced counsel that the 

negotiated Settlement is in the best interest of the class. See In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings 

in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, 410 F. Supp. 659, 666 (D. Minn. 1974) (recommendation of 

experienced counsel is entitled to great weight); DeBoer v. Mellon Mortg. Co., 64 F.3d 1171, 1178 

(8th Cir. 1995) (“The views of the parties to the settlement must ... be considered.”). Class Counsel 

are experienced and capable in the field of maritime claims for cruise ship passenger and 

crewmember injuries and lost wages owed to crewmembers, including class actions, and have 

successfully represented claimants in other litigation of this nearly exact nature. Further, Class 

Counsel has also been appointed Lead or Co-Lead Class Counsel in dozens of class actions 

representing plaintiffs against insurance companies, mortgage companies, cruise lines, consumer 

product sellers, and spearheaded the litigation and resolution of over 30 nationwide class actions 

for homeowners against the major mortgage providers in the country. Based on this experience, 

and decades more with class action lawsuits, it is Class Counsel’s informed opinion that, given the 

uncertainty and expense of pursuing these claims through trial, the settlement is fair, reasonable, 

adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.

E. No Additional Agreements Required to Be Identified

There are no agreements required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3).

V. THE COURT SHOULD CERTIFY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CLASS

“It is well established that a class may be certified solely for purposes of settlement [if] a 

settlement is reached before a litigated determination of the class certification issue.” In re 

Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 275 F.R.D. 654,659 (S.D. Fla. 2011). “In deciding whether to 

provisionally certify a settlement class, a court must consider the same factors that it would 

consider in connection with a proposed litigation class,” save manageability, “since the settlement, 

if approved, would obviate the need for a trial.” Id.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 15 of 21
16

A. The Settlement Class Meets the Four Requirements of Rule 23(a).

The policies underlying the class action rule dictate that Rule 23(a) should be liberally 

construed. See Walco Invs., Inc. v. Thenen, 168 F.R.D. 315, 323 (S.D. Fla. 1996). Plaintiff satisfies

all four requirements of Rule 23 (a) as set forth below.

1. The Settlement Class Is Sufficiently Numerous

Rule 23(a)(1) requires Plaintiff to show that the proposed Class is so numerous that joinder 

of all members would be impracticable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “While there is no fixed rule, 

generally a class size [of] less than twenty-one is inadequate, while a class size of more than forty 

is adequate.” Williams, 280 F.R.D. 665, 671–72 (S.D. Fla. 2012). The proposed class in this case

well exceeds the minimum threshold.

2. Questions of Law and Fact Are Common to All Settlement Class Members.

Rule 23(a)(2) requires class action plaintiffs to identify questions of law or fact common 

to the proposed class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). “The threshold for commonality is not high.” 

Cheney, 213 F.R.D. at 490. Commonality requires a showing that the class members’ claims 

“depend on a common contention” and that the class members have “suffered the same injury.”

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). “[F]or purposes of Rule 23(a)(2), 

even a single [common] question will do[,]” id. at 2556 (brackets in original), and “where a 

common scheme of conduct has been alleged, the commonality requirement should be satisfied.” 

Checking Overdraft, 275 F.R.D. at 673-74.

Plaintiff’s claims here depend on the common claims for damages for breach of the 

virtually identical wage and severance clauses in Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ employment 

contracts. While some Class Members are also entitled to wages, that is a simple calculation that 

can be easily accomplished and constitutes a subclass See Williams, 280 F.R.D. at 672 (finding 

commonality where “all members of the proposed class were injured in the same manner, namely 

by being charged inflated premiums for the FPI”). Thus, while only one question of law or fact is 

required, common questions capable of class-wide resolution arise here regarding whether 

Defendants violated the severance and wage clauses in the contracts of crew members. These 

issues satisfy commonality.

3. Plaintiff’s Claims Are Typical of Those of the Settlement Class

Rule 23(a)(3) requires Plaintiff to demonstrate that his claims are typical of those held by 

the proposed Class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Typicality and commonality are related, with 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 16 of 21
17

commonality referring to “the group characteristics of the class as a whole” and typicality focusing

on the named plaintiff’s claims in relation to the class. In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust 

Litig., 220 F.R.D. 672, 686 n.23 (S.D. Fla. 2004). Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same two 

contract clauses as those brought on behalf of the proposed Class, i.e., Plaintiff and every Class 

Member were not paid severance pursuant to their contracts of employment. Although Plaintiff 

did not perform work on the Grand Celebration, Class Counsel have proposed a subclass for the 

few putative Class Members who worked, but were not compensated. Plaintiff and the Class seek 

redress through similar breaches of common severance and wage clauses in their contracts.

4. Plaintiff and Their Counsel Are Adequate Representatives

To satisfy Rule 23(a)(4), the representative parties must “fairly and adequately represent 

the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). This requirement is satisfied when the class 

representatives have (1) no interests antagonistic to the rest of the class and (2) counsel who are 

“qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation.” Cheney, 213 F.R.D. 

at 495. “Adequate representation is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence.” Association 

for Disabled Ams., Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 211 F.R.D. 457, 464 (S.D. Fla. 2002).

a. Plaintiff Does Not Have Interests Antagonistic to Settlement Class Members

Adequacy exists where a class representative shares common interests with the class and 

seeks the same type of relief for himself and the settlement class members. See Tefel v. Reno, 972 

F. Supp. 608, 617 (S.D. Fla. 1997). Here, Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those held by 

the Settlement Class. The class definition includes only those who were subject to Defendants’ 

conduct. (Ex. A ¶ 2.43). The critical and common issues in this case are the severance and wage 

clauses. Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 23(a)(4). See Williams, 280 F.R. D. at 673–74.

b. Settlement Class Counsel Are Qualified and Experienced

As discussed above, the attorneys who seek to represent the Settlement Class in this case 

are highly qualified to serve as Class Counsel, have been investigating these claims for months, 

and have served as lead and co-lead counsel in some of the largest class actions in the country in

complex cases. The law firms that Plaintiff seeks to name as Class Counsel in this action, Lipcon, 

Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. and The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC, have successfully 

prosecuted numerous maritime claims, insurance and consumer class actions, and are well 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 17 of 21
18

respected in the community that they serve. A copy of Class Counsels’ Firm Resumes are attached 

hereto as Composite Exhibit 6.

B. The Settlement Class Meets the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)

In addition to meeting the four requirements of Rule 23(a), a plaintiff seeking class 

certification must satisfy one subsection of Rule 23(b). Cheney, 213 F.R.D. at 489. Plaintiff here 

seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3), under which certification is appropriate if (1) common 

questions of law or fact predominate over those affecting only individual class members and (2) 

class treatment is superior to other adjudication methods. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The latter 

question implicates manageability concerns, which do not bear on certification of a settlement 

class. See Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 275 F.R.D. at 659. Moreover, giving all Class 

Members the option to accept a comprehensive resolution of their claims in this action or opt out 

of it would be far superior to litigating each of their claims separately, especially since the actual 

damage amounts for each individual class member are low Williams, 280 F.R.D. at 675. 

Accordingly, the Court should certify the proposed Class.

VI. THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1) provides that the “court must direct notice in a 

reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.” Class notice should 

be “reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency 

of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover 

Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). The Parties’ proposed notice plan readily meets this 

standard. The Settlement Agreement provides that the Settlement Administrator shall distribute 

class notice and claim forms by first-class mail in the form attached as Exhibit 2 to the Settlement 

Agreement to all identifiable class members no more than thirty (30) days after the Court enters 

the Preliminary Approval Order. Ex. 4 ¶ 7.1. The Settlement Agreement also provides for an 

internet website through which Settlement Class Members can acquire information, and allows 

those Class Members that have to file claims to submit claims online. Id. ¶ 7.0. 

VII. THE COURT SHOULD APPOINT THE UNDERSIGNED FIRMS AS CLASS COUNSEL

The Parties have defined Class Counsel to include the undersigned law firms. Ex. 4 ¶ 2.6. 

Plaintiff and the undersigned now move the Court to appoint these firms as Settlement Class 

Counsel. Undersigned counsel have significant experience litigating these cases, as well as other 

nationwide class actions.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 18 of 21
19

VIII. THE COURT SHOULD PRELIMINARILY ENJOIN PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS

Finally, the Court should enter an order preliminarily enjoining all Settlement Class 

Members who do not execute and timely file a Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class 

from filing, prosecuting, maintaining or continuing litigation in federal or state court based on or 

related to the claims or facts alleged in this action. This type of injunctive relief is commonly 

granted in preliminary approvals of class action settlements pursuant to the All Writs Act. 

The All Writs Act authorizes the Court to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid 

of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1651(a). The Act empowers the Court to enjoin “conduct which, left unchecked, would have had 

the practical effect of diminishing the court’s power to bring the litigation to its natural 

conclusion.” In re Am. Online Spin-Off Accounts Litig., No. CV 03-6971-RSWL, 2005 WL 

5747463, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2005) (quoting ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp. v. Barton, 569 F.2d 1351, 

1359 (5th Cir. 1978)). 

All individual actions that may be brought by Settlement Class Members who do not opt 

out should therefore be enjoined pending the Court’s determination whether to finally approve the 

proposed Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, pursuant to its authority under the All Writs Act, 

the Court should include in its order a preliminarily injunction against parallel proceedings pending 

the settlement approval process. See, e.g., Shelby v. Two Jinns, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-03794-AB-GJS, 

2017 WL 6347370, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2017) (entering an injunction against asserting released 

claims pending settlement approval and concluding that it is “necessary to protect and effectuate 

the settlement, this Order, and the Court’s flexibility and authority to effectuate this settlement and 

to enter judgment when appropriate, and is ordered in aid of the Court’s jurisdiction and to protect 

its judgments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1651(a)”).

IX. NOTICE REGARDING INCENTIVE AWARD

Plaintiff hereby acknowledges 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 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 19 of 21
20

representatives are impermissible.5

Based upon this ruling, Plaintiff hereby represents and agrees 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, Plaintiff respectfully submits that this Court could still approve the 

Settlement Agreement 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.

6 Id.

X. THE COURT SHOULD SCHEDULE A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

Should the Court grant this Motion, Plaintiff will file his motion for final approval of the 

settlement on a date set by the Court. Plaintiff requests that the Court schedule the Final Approval 

Hearing no less than 110 days after entry of the order preliminarily approving the settlement.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an order granting preliminary approval 

of the settlement. 

 5 NPAS will not become binding precedent until issuance of the mandate (which has not yet 

occurred, nor has rehearing en banc yet occurred). See 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.’”); 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[.]”)). Appellees 

in NPAS have indicated their intention to seek rehearing en banc.

6 Defendants have agreed to this procedure and Exhibit 2 to the Settlement Agreement, the Class 

Notice at ¶18, discloses this procedure to all Settlement Class Members. 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 20 of 21
21

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of December, 2020. 

By: /s/ Adam M. Moskowitz

Adam Moskowitz, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 984280 

adam@moskowitz-law.com 

Howard M. Bushman, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 0364230

howard@moskowitz-law.com 

Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 117520 

joseph@moskowitz-law.com 

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 

2 Alhambra Plaza 

Suite 601 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Telephone: 305 740-1423

-andBy:/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 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was filed electronically via CM/ECF on 

the 18th day of December, 2020 and served by the same means on all counsel of record.

By: /s/ Adam Moskowitz

 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2020 Page 21 of 21