1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RONALD CLARK, on behalf of : 

himself and those similarly situated, : 

 : Case No. 2:18-cv-157 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : CHIEF JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 v. : 

 : MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAVERS 

PIZZA BAKER, INC., et al., : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

OPINION & ORDER 

 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary 

Settlement Approval of Settlement between Plaintiff and Defendants Christopher Baker and Pizza 

Baker, Inc. (the “Baker Defendants”). (ECF No. 170). Having reviewed the Unopposed Motion, 

this Court ORDERS and ADJUDGES: 

1. That the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action 

Settlement (ECF No. 170) is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

2. That under R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the following proposed class is certified for settlement 

purposes only: All non-exempt hourly employees of Baker Pizza’s Domino’s stores who received 

mileage reimbursement related to the delivery of Domino’s pizza (the “Proposed Class”). The 

Class Period is from February 23, 2015 to February 28, 2021. 

3. That the Proposed Class is also certified for settlement purposes only, as a collective 

under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 

4. That, for the purposes of approving the proposed settlement only, the Proposed Class 

meets the requirements for certification of a settlement class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (a) the Proposed Class is ascertainable and so numerous that 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 172 Filed: 04/25/22 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 2049
2 

joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law or fact common 

to the Proposed Class; (c) certain claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of members of the 

Proposed Class; (d) Plaintiff and his counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

Proposed Class; (e) common issues predominate over individual issues; and (f) a class action is 

superior to the other available methods for an efficient resolution of this controversy. 

5. That, for purposes of approving the proposed settlement only, the members of the 

Proposed Class are “similarly situated” for purposes of certification under the FLSA. 

6. That these conditional findings are limited solely to the claims brought on behalf of the 

Proposed Class and are for the purposes of certifying the Rule 23 class and the FLSA collective 

action only. Defendants consent to certification of the Proposed Class only and do not waive any 

arguments they have opposing class and/or collective action certification if the Court declines to 

approve the settlement. 

7. That, on a preliminary basis, the proposed settlement falls within the “range of 

reasonableness” and, therefore, preliminary approval is appropriate. Based on a review of the 

papers submitted by the parties, this Court finds that the settlement is the result of arms-length 

negotiations conducted after Class Counsel has adequately investigated the claims and became 

familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of those claims. 

8. That the settlement process will be administered by Class Counsel. 

9. That the Notice of Settlement, with the following adjustments, will provide the best 

notice practicable, satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e), adequately advise the Proposed Class of 

their rights under the settlement, and meet the requirements of due process. 

a. The Notice of Settlement fairly, plainly, accurately, and reasonably informs the 

Proposed Class of: (1) appropriate information about the nature of this Action, 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 172 Filed: 04/25/22 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 2050
3 

the definition of the class, the identity of Class Counsel, and the essential terms 

of the settlement, including the plan of distribution; (2) appropriate information 

about Plaintiff’s and Class Counsel’s forthcoming applications for the class 

representative’s service payment and Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees and 

litigation costs award; (3) appropriate information about how to claim a share 

of the proceeds under the settlement, and about the Proposed Class member’s 

right to appear through counsel if they desire; and (4) appropriate instructions 

about how to obtain additional information regarding this case and settlement. 

b. The proposed notice does not, however, properly inform the Proposed Class of 

appropriate information about how to opt-out of or in-to the Settlement. In 

hybrid actions such as this, the settlement notice serves a dual purpose: it must 

permit FLSA putative collective action members to opt-in to the settlement 

while allowing Rule 23 class action members to opt-out of the settlement. The 

proposed notice does not accomplish this. Specifically, it does not contain a 

provision allowing FLSA putative collective action members to opt-in to the 

settlement.1

 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended notice that 

complies with the aforementioned requirements, within fourteen (14) days

from the date of this Order. To the extent necessary, Counsel should be sure the 

changes in the amended notice are similarly reflected in the Agreement.2

 

1

 From this Court’s review, the Opt-in Notice Plaintiffs filed in November 2020 (see ECF No. 163-3, 16-4) would 

seem to accomplish this. While this Court ultimately denies as moot the Motion that accompanied that notice, given 

the factual developments since its filing, Plaintiffs are free to utilize that notice in crafting their amended settlement 

notice. 

2

 For example, when the Agreement details the Administration Procedure and Timeline, it should include a section on 

opting into the FLSA collective action. (See ECF No. 170-1 at 11). 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 172 Filed: 04/25/22 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 2051
4 

c. The proposed plan for sending the Notice of Settlement to the Proposed Class 

members by both first-class mail and email is an appropriate method, 

reasonably designed to reach all individuals who would be bound by the 

settlement. With the aforementioned amendments, the proposed Notice of 

Settlement is the best practicable notice under the facts and circumstances of 

this case. 

10. That the attorney’s fees and costs requested will be approved at or after the final 

fairness hearing. 

11. That the Parties are ordered to carry out the settlement according to its terms; and 

12. That a Final Hearing will be held on October 12, 2022 at 11:00 am, in Courtroom 1 of 

the Joseph P. Kinneary United States Courthouse. Any objectors wishing to be heard through 

themselves or counsel must comply with the terms of the Class Notice to submit written objections 

and to appear at the Final Hearing to present such objections. 

13. That any pleadings in support of the proposed settlement shall be filed fourteen (14) 

days before the Final Hearing. In the event that the settlement is not finally approved, or otherwise 

does not become effective, the Parties shall revert to their respective positions as of before entering 

into the settlement. 

 Pursuant to the foregoing analysis, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 170) is GRANTED in 

part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended notice that complies with 

the FLSA’s opt-in requirement, within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. Upon 

approval of that amended notice, the Notice Period shall commence. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 172 Filed: 04/25/22 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 2052
5 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

DATED: April 25, 2022 

Case: 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD Doc #: 172 Filed: 04/25/22 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 2053