UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFFLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

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. and PARADISE CRUISE LINE 

OPERATOR LTD.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CLASS ACTION

SETTLEMENT AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement, Class Counsel’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, and Notice 

Regarding Service Awards. ECF No. [44] (“Motion”). The Court has carefully reviewed the 

Motion, all supporting submissions, the arguments presented at the Final Approval Hearing, the 

record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action on August 4, 2020. ECF No. [1]. On November 30, 2020, 

Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. [34], which is the operative pleading in this 

case. The claims of Settling Plaintiff Dragan Janicijevic, on behalf of himself and all Settlement 

Class Members, and Defendants Classica Cruise Operator Ltd. and Paradise Cruise Line Operator 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 1 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

2

Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”), have been settled pursuant to the Amended Stipulation and 

Settlement Agreement dated December 18, 2020 (the “Settlement Agreement”). See ECF No. [37-

4]. On January 7, 2021, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action 

settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement and provisionally certified the Settlement Class

for settlement purposes only. ECF No. [41]. 

On May 12, 2021, the Court held a duly noticed Final Approval Hearing to consider: 

(1) whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable and 

adequate; (2) whether Judgment should be entered dismissing the Settling Plaintiff’s claims on the 

merits and with prejudice, including the claims of Settlement Class Members; and (3) whether and 

in what amount to award Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses to Class Counsel and a Case Contribution 

Award to the Settling Plaintiff. See ECF No. [50].

The Settlement provides the Class with both monetary relief and important internal changes 

resulting in policies directed to avoid a reoccurrence of the wage dispute before the Court. The 

approved procedures that were incorporated into the class action settlement include procedures 

and protocols so that if a similar incident such as the Pandemic ever occurs in the future that results 

in an immediate stop sail order or other circumstance resulting in an immediate and unexpected 

cessation of the provision of goods and services by the cruise line, there is a mechanism by which 

shipowners, management and crew can either totally avoid a wage dispute or effectively 

communicate in an attempt to resolve any wage issue that may arise if the cruise line is prevented 

from being able to sail or service passengers in the future. The Parties have agreed on a general 

uniform procedure to address the wage issues with the direct involvement of crew members, which 

the Court has been advised will be implemented in all crew contracts when the cruise lines 

commences sailing again. The Court commends Defendants for voluntarily undertaking policy 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 2 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

3

changes. The Court finds that these policies certainly have an important value to the class that 

would not have been brought about by individual actions.

The Settlement provides for a Common Fund of $875,000.00 (the “Fund”) to be 

established for the benefit of the Class. Defendants represent that the Fund will be available to be 

paid to Class Members thirty-five (35) days after the Court grants Final Approval, assuming no 

appeals are filed. If an appeal is filed, payment will be made thirty-five (35) days after resolution 

of the appeal. If no appeal is timely filed, payment will be made within thirty-five (35) days from

the order of final approval and entry of final judgment in this case. 

The fund amount allowed all class members to submit timely claims for both: (1) any and 

all loss of alleged two month severance payments, and (2) any wages and tips not paid for work 

performed by certain crew on the vessel during the class period (because not all crew were asked

to perform tasks). Under the proposed Settlement, all approved class members will receive 100% 

of their lost severance payments, and will be paid for wages and tips (even though no tips were 

paid by passengers during the pandemic when the cruise line was prohibited from sailing by the 

Centers for Disease Control) for all time spent performing tasks on the vessel during the pandemic. 

The Court finds this result to be outstanding, especially considering: (1) each class member had a 

contract that contains a specific Arbitration Clause, which this Court has previously enforced, 

(2) the settlement was able to be reached by all counsel—during a pandemic—and only after 

numerous mediation sessions with nationally-renowned mediator Rodney Max, and (3) the Court 

addressed concerns initially at a hearing with the Parties, which resulted in the filing of a Third 

Amended Complaint that addressed the Court’s concerns.

II. DISCUSSION

As noted above, on May 12, 2021, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing on the Motion. 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 3 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

4

During that hearing, the Court set forth its detailed rulings with regard to each of the relevant 

considerations raised in the Motion. These findings are set forth again in detail below. 

A. Jurisdiction

As set forth on the record at the Final Approval Hearing, the Court finds that it has personal 

jurisdiction over the Parties and the Settlement Class Members, and that it has subject-matter 

jurisdiction over this action and the Released Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) such that 

it has the authority to approve the Settlement Agreement. See ECF No. [34] ¶¶ 1-13; see also David 

v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., No. 08-cv-22278, 2010 WL 1628362, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2010)

(concluding that the Court has “jurisdiction over the Settlement Class because its members were 

provided with proper notice of the proposed Settlement, its consequences, their right to be 

excluded, and their right to be heard.” (citing Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 811-

12 (1985); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 148 F.3d 283, 306 (3d Cir. 1998) 

(“[T]he district court obtains personal jurisdiction over the absentee class members by providing 

proper notice of the impending class action and providing the absentees with the opportunity to be 

heard or the opportunity to exclude themselves from the class.”)).

B. 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’ notice procedures met this standard.

The Settlement Agreement provided that the Settlement Administrator would distribute class 

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

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 4 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

5

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

the Preliminary Approval Order. ECF No. [37-4] ¶ 7.1. The Settlement Agreement further 

provided for an internet website through which Settlement Class Members could acquire

information, and allowed those Class Members with claims to submit those claims online. Id. ¶ 7.0.

Pursuant to the notice procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement, Defendants mailed 

an informational document and Claim Form (“Notice Pakcet”) to the 276 Class Members. See 

generally ECF No. [45]. Most of these Notice Packets were mailed via United States Postal 

Service. However, Notice Packets sent to Honduras needed to be mailed via express mail carrier 

UPS because postal delivery was unavailable in Honduras due to the pandemic. Defendants also 

established a class action website, www.celebrationsettlement.com, dedicated to this matter, and 

Defendants set up a phone number for Settlement Class Member calls and a Post Office Box to 

receive mailed claims. See generally id. Upon review, the Court finds that adequate Class Notice 

was given to the Noticed Class Members in compliance with the Settlement Agreement and this 

Court’s Preliminary Approval Order. 

C. Exclusions

Persons who wished to be excluded from the Settlement Class were provided with an 

opportunity to request exclusion as described in the Mail Notice and on the Settlement Website. 

As of May 2, 2021, 180 claims were received, 177 of which were approved. See ECF No. [48-1] 

at 2. Moreover, eight claimants validly opted out by the April 12, 2021 deadline. See ECF No. [49-

1] at 2. The Court finds that the individual interests of the eight persons who timely sought 

exclusion from the Settlement Class are preserved and that no person was precluded from being 

excluded from the Settlement Class if he or she so desired. 

Additionally, the Court notes that no objections were received in connection with the 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 5 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

6

Settlement Agreement by the April 12, 2021 deadline. ECF No. [48-1] at 2.

D. The Settlement is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate

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 

utilization of scarce judicial resources, and achieve the speedy resolution of justice[.]” Turner v. 

Gen. Elec. Co., No. 2:05-cv-186-FtM-99DNF, 2006 WL 2620275, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2006) 

(citation omitted). For these reasons, “there exists an overriding public interest in favor of 

settlement, particularly in class actions that have the well-deserved reputation as being most 

complex.” ma v. Am. Express Co., 406 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citation omitted).

“Before approving a settlement, the district court must find that it ‘is fair, adequate and 

reasonable and is not the product of collusion between the parties.’” Nelson v. Mead Johnson & 

Johnson Co., 484 F. App’x 429, 434 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 

982, 986 (11th Cir. 1984)). The Court’s “judgment is informed by the strong judicial policy 

favoring settlement as well as by the realization that compromise is the essence of settlement.” Id.

Courts in the Eleventh Circuit evaluate six factors in determining whether to approve a 

class action settlement: (1) the existence of fraud or collusion among the parties in reaching the 

settlement; (2) the complexity, expense, and duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of proceedings 

at which the settlement was achieved and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the probability 

of the plaintiffs’ success on the merits; (5) the range of possible recovery; and (6) the opinions of 

class counsel, the class representatives, and the substance and amount of opposition to the 

settlement. Leverso v. S. Trust Bank of Ala., N.A., 18 F.3d 1527, 1530 n.6 (11th Cir. 1994); see 

also Bennett, 737 F.2d at 986 (not listing absence of fraud or collusion as factor, but still requiring 

its evaluation, and including “the point on or below the range of possible recovery at which a 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 6 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

7

settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable”). “In considering the settlement, the district court may 

rely upon the judgment of experienced counsel for the parties.” Nelson, 484 F. App’x at 434 (citing 

Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (5th Cir. 1977)). “Absent fraud, collusion, or the like, the 

district court ‘should be hesitant to substitute its own judgment for that of counsel.’” Id. (quoting 

Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330).

Taken together, a review of these considerations compels the conclusion that the Settlement 

Agreement in this case warrants final approval.

1. There is no evidence of fraud or collusion among the Parties. 

“Where the parties have negotiated at arm’s length, the Court should find that the 

settlement is not the product of collusion.” Saccoccio v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 297 F.R.D. 

683, 692 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (citing Ass’n for Disabled Ams., Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 211 F.R.D. 457, 

470 (S.D. Fla. 2002)). “There is a presumption of good faith in the negotiation process.” Id.

This settlement was negotiated at arms length. The mediation was overseen by Rodney 

Max, a nationally renowned mediator. Mr. Max has significant experience mediating complex 

commercial suits to resolution and was involved in every step of the negotiation process, and this

mediation process and subsequent negotiations spanned over the course of many weeks. The very 

fact of Mr. Max’s involvement weighs in favor of approval. See, e.g., Poertner v. Gillette Co., 618 

F. App’x 624, 630 (11th Cir. 2015) (“self-dealing contention” was “belied” by involvement of 

experienced mediator); 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 special master 

to oversee mediation evidenced procedural fairness of negotiating process). There is no suggestion 

of fraud or collusion here, either explicit or subtle.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 7 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

8

2. This Settlement will avoid years of complex and expensive litigation. 

This case involves hundreds of Settlement Class Members who were employed by 

Defendants. The claims and potential defenses are complex, and litigating them to resolution 

would have been difficult and time consuming. Recovery by any means other than settlement 

would require years of litigation before this Court and appellate courts. By contrast, the Settlement 

Agreement provides immediate and substantial cash benefits to the Settlement Class. Moreover, 

the Settlement provides the class with relief that is close to 100% of the damages that the Class 

Members might have received by litigating this case through trial.

Litigating these claims to resolution would have proven difficult and consumed significant 

time, money, and judicial resources. Notably, the Parties indicate that Defendants likely would 

have succeeded in enforcing the arbitration clauses in the Class Members’ employment agreements 

with Defendants. Even if Plaintiff and other Class Members had ultimately prevailed in litigation, 

however, that success would likely have only borne fruit for the Class after years of trial and 

appellate proceedings and the expenditure of substantial funds by both sides. “Complex litigation 

– like the instant case – can occupy a court’s docket for years on end, depleting the resources of 

the parties and the taxpayers while rendering meaningful relief increasingly elusive.” In re U.S. 

Oil & Gas Litig., 967 F.2d 489, 493 (11th Cir. 1992); see also Wilson v. EverBank, No. 14-CIV22264, 2016 WL 457011, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2016); In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig Deepwater 

Horizon in Gulf of Mex., on Apr. 20, 2010, 910 F. Supp. 2d 891, 932 (E.D. La. 2012), aff’d, 2014 

WL 103836 (5th Cir. Jan. 10, 2014) (“Even assuming litigation could obtain the results that this 

Settlement provides, years of litigation would stand between the class and any such recovery. 

Hence, this second . . . factor weighs strongly in favor of granting final approval to the Settlement 

Agreement.”).

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 8 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

9

This Settlement Agreement offers the Settlement Class extraordinary relief that “very 

likely exceeds what [they] could have won at trial.” Hall v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 12-cv-22700,

2014 WL 7184039, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2014) (quoting Saccoccio, 297 F.R.D. at 693). There 

was nothing to be gained from engaging in litigation of the claims presented and this factor also 

weighs in favor of approving the Settlement.

3. The factual record is sufficiently developed to enable plaintiff and class counsel to 

make a reasoned judgment concerning the settlement. 

The stage of proceedings at which settlement is achieved is “evaluated to ensure that 

Plaintiffs had access to sufficient information to adequately evaluate the merits of the case and 

weigh the benefits of settlement against further litigation.” Lipuma v. Am. Express Co., 406 F.

Supp. 2d 1298, 1324 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citation omitted). At the same time, “[t]he law is clear that 

early settlements are to be encouraged, and accordingly, only some reasonable amount of 

discovery should be required to make these determinations.” Ressler v. Jacobson, 822 F. Supp. 

1551, 1555 (M.D. Fla. 1992); see, e.g., In re Remeron End-Payor Antitrust Litig., No. Civ. 02-

2007 FSH, Civ. 04-5126 FSH, 2005 WL 2230314, at *21 (D.N.J. Sept. 13, 2005) (“Early 

settlements benefit everyone involved in the process and everything that can be done to encourage 

such settlements, especially in complex class action cases, should be done.” (citation omitted));

Lipuma, 406 F. Supp. 2d at 1324 (“courts favor early settlement”). “Indeed, vast formal discovery 

need not be taken.” Saccoccio, 297 F.R.D. at 694 (citation omitted).

Here, Class Counsel investigated their claims and allegations prior to filing this litigation

and after filing through discovery, including the review of financial information, class members’ 

employment contacts, correspondence between the class and the Defendants, and other relevant 

documents. Class Counsel’s investigation and review of the information provided by Defendants

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 9 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

10

enabled them to gain an understanding of the evidence related to central questions in the case, and 

prepared them for well-informed settlement negotiations. Before settling, Class Counsel had 

already developed ample information and performed extensive analyses from which to assess the

probability of success on the merits, the possible range of recovery, and the likely expense and 

duration of the litigation. Thus, Class Counsel were well-positioned to evaluate the strengths and 

weaknesses of Plaintiff’s claims, and those of Class Members, as well as the appropriate bases 

upon which to settle them.

4. Plaintiff and Class Members would have faced significant risks had they

proceeded with litigation. 

“[T]he likelihood and extent of any recovery from the defendants absent . . . settlement” 

must also be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a settlement. See In re Domestic Air

Transp. Antitrust Litig., 148 F.R.D. 297, 314 (N.D. Ga. 1993); Ressler v. Jacobson, 822 F. Supp. 

1551, 1555 (M.D. Fla. 1992) (“A Court is to consider the likelihood of the plaintiff's success on 

the merits of his claims against the amount and form of relief offered in the settlement before 

judging the fairness of the compromise.”). Plaintiff might have recovered nothing for himself or 

for the other Class Members had he proceeded with this litigation. Indeed, Plaintiff would have 

needed to overcome Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, succeed on class certification,

survive summary judgment, and prevail on a possibly lengthy trial and appeal. Moreover, 

Defendants’ potentially case-dispositive defenses could have resulted in Plaintiff recovering 

nothing from this litigation. This factor therefore weighs strongly in favor of final approval, 

particularly given the significant relief made available to the Settlement Class. See Hall, 2014 WL 

7184039, at *4 (“Indeed, there exists a potential that the class could endure a long and expensive 

trial only to come away with nothing. . . . In light of the recovery to the class, as well as the 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 10 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

11

significant litigation risk Plaintiffs faced absent settlement, the settlement is fair, reasonable and 

adequate.”). 

5. The Settlement offers Class Members near-complete monetary relief as well as 

valuable injunctive relief. 

“The range of potential recovery ‘spans from a finding of non-liability through varying 

levels of injunctive relief,’ in addition to any monetary benefits to class members.” Figueroa v. 

Sharper Image Corp., 517 F. Supp. 2d 1292, 1326 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing Lipuma, 406 F. Supp.

2d at 1322). “In considering the question of possible recovery, the focus is on the possible recovery 

at trial.” Saccoccio, 297 F.R.D. at 693 (citation omitted). “[T]he Court’s role is not to engage in a 

claim-by-claim, dollar-by-dollar evaluation, but rather, to evaluate the proposed settlement in its 

totality.” Id. (citation omitted). 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 v. 

Brennan, No. 10-cv-4712, 2011 WL 4357376, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2011) (citation 

and quotations omitted).

Here, the Settlement Agreement provides that all Settlement Class Members are eligible to 

receive a cash payment of 100% of their contractual two-month severance payments, as well as a 

portion of their wages for work performed on the vessels while in port without guests, ECF No. 

[37-4] ¶ 4, which “very likely exceeds what Plaintiffs could have won at trial.” Saccoccio, 297 

F.R.D. at 693; see also, e.g., Braynen, 2015 WL 6872519, at *7 (“This Settlement is generous to 

Class Members, providing relief approximating a trial win and, for many Class Members, 

exceeding a trial win.”). In fact, all Settlement Class Members who submit a valid claim form will 

recover a cash payment. Furthermore, as noted above, it is highly uncertain whether Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 11 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

12

case would have survived beyond the dismissal stage, as Defendants presented strong defenses 

and moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clauses contained within the 

crewmember employee agreements. As such, the Court views the Settlement as an exceedingly 

fair compromise. See, e.g., Bennett, 96 F.R.D. at 349-50 (plaintiffs faced a “myriad of factual and 

legal problems” that led to “great uncertainty as to the fact and the amount of damage,” making it 

“unwise [for plaintiffs] to risk the substantial benefits which the settlement confer[red] . . . to the 

vagaries of a trial”), aff’d, 737 F.2d 982 (11th Cir. 1984); Enter. Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas 

Transmission Corp., 137 F.R.D. 240, 248 (S.D. Ohio 1991) (noting “very real potential that the 

Class could come away from a long expensive trial with nothing,” and rejecting notion “that the 

Class should get more”). This alone supports a finding of reasonableness. 

In addition, courts rightly consider the value of injunctive and monetary relief together in 

assessing whether a class action settlement provides sufficient relief to the class. See, e.g., 

Poertner, 618 F. App’x at 630 (noting that objector’s valuation of settlement based on monetary 

benefits alone was “flawed,” and affirming approval based on inclusion of injunctive and cy pres

relief); Hamilton, 2014 WL 5419507, at *4 (“The Court finds the injunctive changes provided in 

the Settlement Agreement are important and have significant value to the class members 

nationwide.”); Perez, 501 F. Supp. 2d at 1381 (describing important injunctive relief in discussing 

range of possible recovery); Lipuma, 406 F. Supp. 2d at 1323 (valuing injunctive relief as part of 

“significant relief” made available to class and determining that settlement was fair, adequate, and 

reasonable). Approval of the Settlement will put an end to Defendants’ practices complained of by 

Plaintiff, thus protecting current and future individuals employed by Defendants should an 

extraordinary situation arise again where Defendants are required to repatriate crewmembers due 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 12 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

13

to a no-sail order. In this Court’s judgment, this Settlement offers Settlement Class Members the 

best relief possible, which weighs strongly in favor of final approval.

6. There is no opposition from members of the Settlement Class, and Class Counsel 

and the Class Representative support the Settlement. 

Class Counsel advocate for final approval, and their opinion is firmly based in their 

significant experience with the type of litigation at issue in this case. Class Counsel believe that 

this Settlement is extraordinary and clearly deserving of final approval. Based on this experience, 

and their decades of experience litigating complex class action lawsuits, it is Class Counsel’s wellinformed opinion that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the 

Class. The Court gives “great weight to the recommendations of counsel for the parties, given their 

considerable experience in this type of litigation.” Warren v. Tampa, 693 F. Supp. 1051, 1060 

(M.D. Fla. 1988). Moreover, the Class Representative supports the Settlement and opposition to 

the Settlement has been de minimis, with no objections and only eight exclusion requests from 

Class Members. As such, these considerations weigh strongly in favor of final approval. 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and 

adequate, and not the product of collusion. The Parties are directed to implement and consummate 

the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions.

E. Reasonableness of the Fee Award

The instant Motion also seeks an award of fees and costs to Class Counsel, and an incentive 

award for Plaintiff for his services as the Class Representative. The Class Notice specifically 

addressed Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fee and costs and incentive award requests, and were 

provided to all class members and appropriate federal offcials under the Class Action Fairness Act, 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, and 1711-1715 (“CAFA”). See Declarations of Catherine MacIvor at 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 13 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

14

ECF Nos. [45], [46], [48], & [49]. Not a single class member nor regulator stated any opposition 

or objection to the requests. Id. The Court has reviewed the Motion and has had the benefit of 

hearing from counsel during the May 12, 2021 Final Approval Hearing. 

Class Counsel request a fee award in the amount of $262,500.00 (inclusive of all costs and 

expenses), which is less than 30% of the Common Settlement Fund. The United States Supreme 

Court, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and this Court, have all expressly approved 

calculating fees by applying the percentage-of-recovery method to the total value of the settlement. 

See Boeing v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 (1980) (“[A] litigant or lawyer who recovers a 

common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable 

attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole.”); Waters v. Int’l Precious Metals Corp., 190 F.3d 1291, 

1295-96 (11th Cir. 1999) (affirming fee award of 33-1/3% of total amount made available to class, 

and determining that attorneys’ fees may be determined based on total fund, not just actual payout 

to class); see also Poertner v. Gillette Co., 618 F. App’x 624, 628 (11th Cir. 2015) (“attorney’s 

fees awarded from a common fund shall be based on a reasonable percentage of the fund 

established for the benefit of the class” (quoting Camden I Condo. Ass’n v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 

774 (11th Cir. 1991))); David v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., No. 08-cv-22278, 2010 WL 1628362, 

at *8 n.14 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2010) (settlement with ascertainable benefits may be treated as a 

common fund to which a percentage fee may be awarded, even if the fee is separately paid by the 

defendant). “Under Camden I, courts in this Circuit regularly award fees based on a percentage of 

the recovery, without discussing lodestar at all.” In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 830 F. 

Supp. 2d 1330, 1363 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (citing David, 2010 WL 1628362, at *7-8).

The Eleventh Circuit’s factors for evaluating the reasonable percentage to award class 

action counsel are (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 14 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

15

involved; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other 

employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the 

fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the 

amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the 

attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and the length of the professional 

relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. See Camden I, 946 F.2d at 772 n.3. 

This Court may also consider the time required to reach a settlement, the existence of substantial 

objections and non-monetary benefits, and the economics of prosecuting a class action. Id. at 775. 

The factors set forth in Camden I fully support the full award requested.

In this case, the result—the recovery for every class member—is exceptional, and perhaps 

best supports the basis and justification for Class Counsel’s requested fee award. The result 

achieved by counsel is a major factor to consider in making a fee award. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 

461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983) (“critical factor is the degree of success obtained”); Behrens v. Wometco 

Enterprises, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 534, 547-48 (S.D. Fla. 1988), aff’d, 899 F.2d 21 (11th Cir. 1990) 

(“The quality of work performed in a case that settles before trial is best measured by the benefit 

obtained.”). The results of more than $875,000.00 in cash and the prospective relief are excellent. 

Each Class Member stands to obtain more than 100% of what they could have obtained at trial in 

this matter. Defendants are also required to change their business practices to ensure the issues 

which gave rise to this action do not repeat. This factor supports the requested fee award.

The other factors support awarding the requested fee as well. The complexity of this case 

required significant time and labor by Class Counsel. Class Counsel investigated their claims and 

allegations through discovery, including the review of documents. This work required a significant 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 15 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

16

amount of resources. Class Counsel worked efficiently, and achieved this excellent result swiftly,

which effectively limited wasting resources of all parties and this Court.

This case presented novel questions of law and issues of fact. This is especially so as the 

case stemmed from a once-in-a-century pandemic, where the Defendants were ordered to stop 

operations and had to repatriate crew members from all over the world under extremely difficult 

circumstances due to travel restrictions and many other obstacles. Class action matters are 

generally complex, but this additional layer makes this action extremely unique. Defendants’ 

defenses regarding compliance with contracts, arbitration, the different laws at issue, and the 

formulation of a damages methodology were also extremely complex. 

This litigation required a high degree of skill and experience. Class Counsel have 

established their skill, experience, and reputation in the record, and in repeated cases before this 

Court. They resolved this dispute efficiently despite the potential hurdles presented them and the 

arguments raised by Defendants detailed above. This factor also favors awarding the requested 

fee.

Further, a determination of a fair fee for Class Counsel must include consideration of the 

contingent nature of the fee, the outlay of out-of-pocket expenses by Class Counsel, and the fact 

that the risks of failure and nonpayment in a class action are extremely high. See also Pinto v. 

Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 513 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2007). These factors weigh in 

favor of awarding Class Counsel 30% of the value of the cash benefits obtained (inclusive of 

expenses). Class Counsel received no compensation during the course of this litigation and 

incurred expenses on behalf of the Class, which they risked losing had Defendants prevailed. This 

factor supports the requested fee. 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 16 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

17

Turning to the next factor, the requested fee of 30% of the settlement fund is in keeping 

with fee awards approved by other courts in class actions. See Sawyer v. Intermex Wire Transfer,

LLC, No. 19-cv-22212, 2020 WL 5259094, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2020) (awarding one-third of 

the common fund); Hanley v. Tampa Bay Sports & Entm’t LLC, No. 8:19-cv-00550-CEH-CPT, 

2020 WL 2517766, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2020) (“Indeed, district courts in the Eleventh Circuit 

routinely approve fee awards of one-third of the common settlement fund.”); Wolff v. Cash 4 Titles, 

No. 03-cv-22778, 2012 WL 5290155, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2012) (collecting cases and 

concluding that 33% is consistent with the market rate in class actions); Waters, 190 F.3d at 1295-

96 (affirming attorneys’ fee award of 33.3% to class counsel). In this case, considering the 

complexity of the case and the result achieved, a fee award of $262,500.00 is reasonable. See

Hanley, 2020 WL 2517766, at *6.

Importantly, the percentage approved here includes all of Class Counsel and Defendants’ 

Counsel’s cost and expenses incurred in administrating the settlement, which will all be paid out 

of the final approved award of $262,500.00. Defendants declared that they have incurred $6,027.40 

in costs related to the Cost of the Admninstration. See Catherine J. MacIvor Declaration ECF No. 

[45]. Included among the many responsiblities conducted by Defendants in the administration of 

the settlement, in cooperation and coordination with Class Counsel, included (1) providing the 

CAFA notice, (2) printing and preparing the necessary Claim Forms, Class Notice, and Claims 

Instructions, 1(3) providing all of the notice to the class (via mail, email addresses (where 

available),2 UPS Courier to Honduras (due to mailing issues during pandemic),3establishing a 

1 No charges incurred since the cost was absorbed by Defendant.

2 $1080.09 in postage to international addresses.

3 $1,725.92 for courier fees to Honduras since no U.S. Post Office mail was allowed in Honduras due to 

the pandemic.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 17 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

18

P.O. Box.,4and (4) creating and maintaining a toll free phone hotline and the Settlement Website.5

Id. Class Counsel state that they have incurred $7,279.00 in recoverable costs in this litigation. See

ECF No. [51].

Moreover, Defendants’ counsel expended, and were paid by their own client, 

approximately $60,000.00 between January and late April 2021 for their services, specifically in 

administering the notice and processing claims along with the oversight of Class Counsel. ECF 

No. [45]. Accordingly, the Court commends the Parties for suggesting, and carrying out in a 

successful manner, all of the necessary Costs of Administration (notice and claims) themselves, 

without having the need to hire an outside Claims and Notice Adminstrator, which can typically 

range in the many thousands of dollars and which would deplete the recovery to the Class. See

ECF Nos. [45], [46], [48], & [49]. 

“Courts typically allow counsel to recover their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. Indeed, 

courts normally grant expense requests in common fund cases as a matter of course.” Hanley, 2020 

WL 2517766, at *6; see also Dowdell v. City of Apopka, 698 F.2d 1181, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 1983) 

(“[W]ith the exception of routine office overhead normally absorbed by the practicing attorney, all 

reasonable expenses incurred in case preparation, during the course of litigation, or as an aspect of 

settlement of the case may be taxed as costs under section 1988.”); Flaum v. Doctor’s Assoc., Inc., 

No. 16-61198-CIV, 2019 WL 2576361, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2019) (approving costs to Class 

Counsel). The requested award of costs and expenses consists of mediation, settlement 

administration, and case-related costs, and the Court finds these expenses to be in line with normal 

expenditure amounts. See James v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 8:15-cv-2424-T-23JSS, 2017 

4 Rental cost for P.O. Box was $538.21.

5 Purchase of the domain was $108.20, domain registration was $23.16, website hosting and security was 

$601.82 and website design and implementation was $1,950.00.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 18 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

19

WL 2472499, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2017) (approving recovery of mediation, travel, and other 

expenses incurred in connection with the matter).

In this case, considering the complexity of the case, the exceptional result achieved, and 

the Settlement Class’s favorable reaction to the Settlement Agreement, a fee award of $262,500.00 

is reasonable and appropriate.

F. Class Representative’s Service Award

Finally, the Motion requests that an incentive award of $5,000.00 be awarded to Plaintiff 

as the Class Representative. After the original Settlement Agreement was executed and this 

Court’s entered the Preliminary Approval Order, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling in 

Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020), holding that service awards for 

class action representatives are impermissible. Importantly, no mandate in Johnson has been issued 

and a ruling for rehearing en banc is pending.

Class Counsel requested that this Court still approve the Settlement Agreement and all of 

its terms, but not approve the 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 

Johnson. See Metzler, et al. v. Medical Mgmt. Int’l Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-2289-T-33CPT, 2020 

WL 5994537, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2020) (reserving jurisdiction to award service awards if 

Johnson is reversed). The Court agrees with Class Counsel and will not approve the service award, 

but will reserve jurisdiction to allow Class Counsel to renew the request for a service award should 

Johnson be reversed.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 19 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

20

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [44], is 

GRANTED as set forth below:

1. The terms and conditions in the Settlement Agreement are incorporated as though 

fully set forth in this Judgment, and unless otherwise indicated, capitalized terms in this Judgment 

shall have the meanings attributed to them in the Settlement Agreement.

2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Settling Plaintiff, Defendants, and 

Settlement Class Members, venue is proper, the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to approve 

the Settlement Agreement, including all Exhibits thereto, and the Court has jurisdiction to enter 

this Judgment. Without in any way affecting the finality of this Judgment, this Court retains 

jurisdiction as to all matters relating to administration, consummation, enforcement, and 

interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and of this Judgment, and for any other necessary 

purpose, including, but not limited to, enforcement of the Releases contained in the Settlement 

Agreement and entry of such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate in administering 

and implementing the terms and provisions of the Settlement.

3. The Settlement was negotiated at arm’s length by experienced counsel who were 

fully informed of the facts and circumstances of this Litigation and of the strengths and weaknesses 

of their respective positions. The Settlement was reached after the Parties had engaged in 

mediation and extensive negotiations. Counsel for the Parties were therefore well-positioned to 

evaluate the benefits of the Settlement, taking into account the expense, risk and uncertainty of 

protracted litigation with respect to numerous difficult questions of fact and law.

4. The Court finds that the prerequisites for a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) 

and 23(b) have been satisfied for settlement purposes for each Settlement Class Member in that:

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 20 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

21

(a) the number of Settlement Class Members is so numerous that joinder of all members thereof is 

impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class; (c) the 

claims of Settling Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class Members he seeks to 

represent; (d) Settling Plaintiff and Class Counsel have and will continue to fairly and adequately 

represent the interests of the Settlement Class Members for purposes of the Settlement; (e) the 

questions of law and fact common to Settlement Class Members predominate over any questions 

affecting any individual Settlement Class Member; (f) the Settlement Class is reasonably 

ascertainable; and (g) a class action is superior to the other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of the controversy. Accordingly, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, this 

Court finally certifies the Settlement Class.

5. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Court finally certifies the Settlement Class for 

settlement purposes only, as identified in the Settlement Agreement, which shall consist of the 

following:

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.

“Seafarer-employees” shall not include deck and engine employees and 

independent contractors, as well as the Cruise Defendants’ corporate officers or 

corporate directors.“Seafarer-employees” shall not include Cruise Defendants’

corporate officers or corporate directors.

6. The Court finally designates the law firms of Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & 

Winkleman, P.A. and The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

7. The Court finally designates Settling Plaintiff Dragan Janicijevic as the Settlement 

Class representative.

8. The Court makes the following findings with respect to Class Notice to the 

Settlement Class:

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 21 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

22

8.1. The Court finds that the distribution of direct Notice, Claim Form, Claim 

Form Instructions, and the creation of the Settlement Website and a toll-free telephone number for 

Class Member questions, all as provided for in the Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary 

Approval Order, (i) constituted the best practicable notice under the circumstances that was 

reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Noticed Class Members of the 

Settlement, their right to object or to exclude themselves from the Settlement, and their right to 

appear at the Final Approval Hearing; (ii) were reasonable and constituted due, adequate and 

sufficient notice to all persons entitled to be provided with notice; and (iii) complied fully with the 

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the United States Constitution, the Rules of this Court, and any 

other applicable law.

8.2. Class Counsel has filed with the Court a declaration from Catherine J. 

MacIvor, ECF No. [44-2], attesting that the Mail Notice, Claim Form, and Claim Form Instructions 

were mailed to Noticed Class Members on February 5, 2021, and the Settlement Website was

established on January 19, 2021. Adequate Class Notice was given to the Noticed Class Members 

in compliance with the Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order.

9. Persons who wished to be excluded from the Settlement Class were provided an 

opportunity to request exclusion as described in the Mail Notice and on the Settlement Website.

The Court finds that the individual interests of the eight persons who timely sought exclusion from 

the Settlement Class are preserved and that no person was precluded from being excluded from 

the Settlement Class if he or she so desired. See ECF No. [48-1]. Those persons who timely and 

properly excluded themselves from the Settlement Class are identified in the Supplemental 

Declaration of Catherine J. MacIvor, ECF No. [49-1].

10. Defendants have complied with all notice obligations under the Class Action 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 22 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

23

Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1715, et seq., in connection with the proposed Settlement.

11. By failing to timely file and serve an objection in writing to the Settlement 

Agreement, to the entry of this Judgment, to Class Counsel’s application for fees, costs, and 

expenses, or to the Case Contribution Award to the Settling Plaintiff, in accordance with the 

procedure set forth in the Mail Notice and mandated in the Preliminary Approval Order, Settlement 

Class Members are deemed to have waived any such objection through any appeal, collateral 

attack, or otherwise.

12. The terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including all Exhibits 

attached thereto, have been entered into in good faith and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), are 

fully and finally approved as fair, reasonable, adequate as to, and in the best interests of, Settlement 

Class Members. The Court enters judgment approving and adopting the Settlement and the 

Settlement Agreement, fully and finally terminating all Released Claims of all Releasing Persons 

in this Litigation against the Released Parties, on the merits and with prejudice.

13. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), the Court awards Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees 

and expenses in the amount of two-hundred sixty-two thousand five hundred dollars and zero cents 

($262,500.00) payable by Defendants pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The 

Court denies Plaintiff’s request for a service award at this time but retains jurisdiction for the 

limited purpose of revisiting the denial of service award if the Eleventh Circuit holds a rehearing 

en banc in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020), and reverses its 

decision, or if another Eleventh Circuit decision overrules Johnson. Defendants shall not be 

responsible for, and shall not be liable with respect to the allocation among Class Counsel or any 

other person who may assert a claim thereto, the attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded by the 

Court.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 23 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

24

14. The terms of the Settlement Agreement, including all Exhibits thereto, and of this 

Judgment, shall be forever binding on, and shall have res judicata and preclusive effect in and on, 

all claims and pending and future lawsuits maintained by Settling Plaintiff and/or each Settlement 

Class Member, as well as each of their respective spouses, family members, executors, 

representatives, administrators, guardians, wards, heirs, attorneys-in-fact, estates, bankruptcy 

estates, bankruptcy trustees, successors, predecessors, joint tenants, tenants in common, tenants by 

the entirety, co-mortgagors, co-obligors, co-debtors, attorneys, agents and assigns, and all those 

who claim through them or who assert claims (or could assert claims) on their behalf, and all other 

Releasing Persons.

15. The Releases, which are set forth in Section 15 of the Settlement Agreement, are 

expressly incorporated herein in all respects and are effective as of the entry of this Judgment.

Each of the Released Parties is forever released, relinquished, and discharged by each Releasing 

Person, including all Settlement Class Members, from all Released Claims (as that term is defined 

below and in the Settlement Agreement).

15.1. The definitions in the Settlement Agreement are incorporated in and are part 

of this Judgment.

15.2 Each Releasing Party shall, by operation of this Judgment, be deemed to 

have released any and all actual, potential, filed, known or unknown, fixed or contingent, claimed 

or unclaimed, suspected or unsuspected, claims, demands, liabilities, rights, causes of action, 

contracts or agreements (oral or written), extracontractual claims, damages, actual, statutory, 

punitive, exemplary or multiplied damages, expenses, costs, attorney’s fees and/or obligations, 

whether in law or equity, accrued or unaccrued, direct, individual or representative, of every nature 

and description whatsoever, whether based on 46 U.S.C. § 10313, 46 U.S.C. § 10504, 18 U.S.C.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 24 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

25

§ 1595, federal, state, local, statutory or common law or any other law, rule or regulation, including 

the law of any jurisdiction outside the United States, against the Released Parties, or any of them, 

arising out of the facts, transactions, events, matters, occurrences, acts, disclosures, statements, 

promises, representations, omissions or failures to act regarding any and all alleged unpaid wages

or monies promised, including all past, present and future claims that were brought or could have 

been brought in the Action concerning any of the claims raised therein.

15.3 In agreeing to the foregoing Release, Settling Plaintiff, for himself and on 

behalf of Settlement Class Members, shall be deemed to have acknowledged that unknown losses 

or claims could possibly exist and that any present losses may have been underestimated in amount 

or severity. Settling Plaintiff or any Settlement Class Member may hereafter discover facts other 

than or different from those that he/she knows or believes to be true with respect to the subject 

matter of the Released Claims or the law applicable to such claims may change. Nonetheless, 

Settling Plaintiff and each Settlement Class Member shall be deemed to have irrevocably waived 

and fully, finally and forever settled and released any known or unknown, suspected or 

unsuspected, asserted or unasserted, liquidated or unliquidated, contingent or non-contingent, 

claims with respect to all Released Claims. Further, Settling Plaintiff and each Settlement Class

Member shall be bound by this Agreement, including by the Releases, and all of their claims in 

the Litigation asserted against Defendants shall be dismissed with prejudice and released, without 

regard to subsequent discovery of different or additional facts or subsequent changes in the law, 

and regardless of whether unknown losses or claims exist or whether present losses may have been 

underestimated in amount or severity, and even if they never received the Mail Notice of the 

Settlement, did not otherwise have knowledge of the Settlement, or never received Claim 

Settlement Relief. The Settling Parties shall be deemed to have acknowledged that the foregoing 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 25 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

26

Releases were bargained for and are a material element of the Settlement Agreement.

15.4. Released Claims do not apply to new claims arising after the close of the 

Settlement Class Period based on conduct that took place after the close of the Settlement Period.

Nothing in the Order shall be deemed a release of any Settlement Class Member’s respective rights 

and obligations for such Post Settlement Claims.

15.5. Settling Plaintiff and Class Counsel have represented and warranted that 

there are no outstanding liens or claims against the Litigation, and Settling Plaintiff and Class 

Counsel will be solely responsible for satisfying any liens or claims asserted against the Litigation.

15.6 Settling Plaintiff and each Settlement Class Member shall be deemed to 

agree and acknowledge that the foregoing Releases were bargained for and are a material element 

of the Settlement Agreement.

15.7 The Releases do not affect the rights of Noticed Class Members who timely 

and properly submitted a Request for Exclusion.

15.8 The Settlement Agreement shall be the exclusive remedy for all Settlement 

Class Members with regards to the Released Claims. 

16. Neither the Settlement Agreement, nor any of its terms and provisions, nor any of 

the negotiations or proceedings connected with it, nor any of the documents or statements referred 

to therein, nor this Judgment, nor any of its terms and provisions shall be:

16.1. Offered by any person or received against any of the Released Parties as 

evidence or construed as or deemed to be evidence of any presumption, concession, or admission 

by any Released Party of the truth of the facts alleged by any person or the validity of any claim 

that has been or could have been asserted in the Litigation or in any litigation against any Released 

Party, or other judicial or administrative proceeding, or the deficiency of any defense that has been 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 26 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

27

or could have been asserted in the Litigation or in any litigation against any Released Party, or of 

any liability, negligence, fault or wrongdoing of any Released Party;

16.2. Offered by any person or received against any of the Released Parties as 

evidence of a presumption, concession, or admission of any fault, misrepresentation, or omission 

with respect to any statement or written document approved or made by any of the Released Parties 

or of any other wrongdoing by any of the Released Parties;

16.3 Offered by any person or received against any of the Released Parties as 

evidence of a presumption, concession, or admission with respect to any liability, negligence, 

breach, fault, omission, or wrongdoing in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding in any 

court, administrative agency, or other tribunal; 

16.4 Offered or received in evidence in any action or proceeding against any of 

the Released Parties in any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal for any purpose 

whatsoever, other than to enforce or otherwise effectuate the Settlement Agreement (or any 

agreement or order relating thereto), including the Releases or this Judgment.

17. In the event that the Effective Date does not occur, this Judgment shall 

automatically be rendered null and void and shall be vacated and, in such event, all orders entered 

and releases delivered in connection herewith shall be null and void, and the Parties will be restored 

to their positions as of August 20, 2020.

18. This Judgment and the Settlement Agreement may be filed in any action against or 

by any Released Party in order to support any argument, defense or counterclaim, including, 

without limitation, those based on principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith 

settlement, judgment bar or reduction, or any other theory of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or 

similar defense or counterclaim.

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 27 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

28

19. Settling Plaintiff and all Settlement Class Members and their respective spouses, 

family members, executors, representatives, administrators, guardians, wards, heirs, attorneys-infact, estates, bankruptcy estates, bankruptcy trustees, successors, predecessors, joint tenants, 

tenants in common, tenants by the entirety, co-mortgagors, co-obligors, co-debtors, attorneys, 

agents and assigns, and all those who claim through them or who assert claims (or could assert 

claims) on their behalf, have released the Released Claims as against the Released Parties, and 

are, from this day forward, permanently barred and enjoined from directly or indirectly (a) filing, 

commencing, prosecuting, maintaining (including claims or actions already filed), intervening in, 

defending, or participating in (as parties, class members or otherwise) any action in any jurisdiction 

before any court or tribunal based on, arising from, or relating to any of the Released Claims or 

the facts and circumstances relating thereto, against any of the Released Parties; or (b) organizing 

any Settlement Class Members, or soliciting the participation of any Settlement Class

Members, for purposes of pursuing any action (including by seeking to amend a pending 

complaint to include class allegations, or seeking class certification in a pending action) in 

any jurisdiction before any court or tribunal based on or relating to any of the Released Claims 

or the facts and circumstances relating thereto. Any person in violation of this injunction may 

be subject to sanctions, including payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in seeking 

enforcement of the injunction. The foregoing injunction is issued in order to protect the continuing 

jurisdiction of the Court and to effectuate and implement the Settlement Agreement and this 

Judgment.

20. Settlement Class Members shall promptly dismiss with prejudice all claims, 

actions, or proceedings that have been brought by any Settlement Class Member in any jurisdiction 

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 28 of 29
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis

29

that are based on Released Claims pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and this Judgment, and 

that are enjoined pursuant to this Judgment.

21. The claims of Settling Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class, 

including all individual claims and class claims presented herein, are dismissed on the merits and 

with prejudice against Defendants without fees (including attorneys’ fees) or costs to any party 

except as otherwise provided in this Judgment.

22. Settling Parties are directed to implement and consummate the Settlement 

according to its terms and provisions, as may be modified by Orders of this Court. Without further 

order of the Court, Settling Parties may agree to reasonably necessary extensions of time to carry 

out any of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, as may be modified by the Preliminary 

Approval Order or this Judgment.

23. Pursuant to Rule 54(b), the Court enters Judgment as described herein and expressly 

determines that there is no just reason for delay. Without impacting the finality of this Judgment, 

the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation, consummation, 

implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and this Judgment, including 

jurisdiction to enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 19, 2021.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23223-BB Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2021 Page 29 of 29