TEXT ORDER Regarding Plaintiffs' Verified Motion for Court Approval of Collective Action Settlement and Request for Dismissal with Prejudice (DE 75 ). Upon review of the Parties' Joint Supplement (DE 80 ), the Court finds that the Parties have substantially addressed the matters identified in the Court's September 17, 2026, Text Order (DE 77 ). Limited additional clarification, however, is necessary before the Court completes its review of the proposed settlement. First, the payments to Jason Fulginiti and Caitlyn Goldman. Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement originally submitted with the Motion identified each $500.00 payment to Opt-In Plaintiffs Jason Fulginiti and Caitlyn Goldman as a "Participation Payment." The amended Exhibit A filed with the Joint Supplement now identifies each payment as an "Alleged Misappropriated Tips Payment," allocated as $250.00 in wages and $250.00 in non-wage amounts. The Joint Supplement does not otherwise explain this change in characterization or the factual basis and methodology supporting these payments, and the revised proposed order does not identify the payments separately. The Parties shall clarify the nature of the $500.00 payments, including whether they represent compromise payments resolving alleged misappropriated-tips claims, compensation for participation in the litigation, or some other form of payment; identify the factual basis and methodology supporting the amount and allocation of each payment; and explain why the payments should be found fair and reasonable as part of the proposed FLSA settlement.
Second, final certification of the Settlement Collective. The Court conditionally certified eight FLSA collectives by its August 1, 2025, Order. (DE 46.) The amended Settlement Agreement states that Defendants continue to deny that this action is appropriate for final collective certification, while the Motion takes the position that final certification is unnecessary for settlement approval. The Parties shall state their positions concerning whether the Court should make a final similarly-situated determination before approving the settlement and whether Defendants maintain their opposition to final certification in the settlement context or agree to certification solely for settlement purposes. The Parties shall address the applicable authority, including Irvine v. Destination Wild Dunes Management, Inc., 204 F. Supp. 3d 846, 84849 (D.S.C. 2016), and identify the record basis supporting their positions, including, as applicable, the factual and employment settings of the participating Plaintiffs, the extent to which Defendants' defenses are individualized, and relevant fairness and procedural considerations.
Third, retained jurisdiction. The amended Settlement Agreement defines the "Effective Date" as the day after entry of the order approving the settlement and contemplates that the Court will retain jurisdiction for one hundred thirty (130) days following entry of that order. Section 4.5, however, requires Counsel for the Collectives to file a status report within five (5) calendar days after one hundred twenty-five (125) days following the Effective Date. The Parties shall confirm whether the proposed 130-day period measured from entry of the approval order extends through the latest deadline contemplated by Section 4.5 and otherwise encompasses the settlement-administration obligations for which retained jurisdiction is requested. If revision of the Settlement Agreement or the proposed period of retained jurisdiction is necessary to reconcile those provisions, the Parties shall submit the appropriate revised language.
Accordingly, within five (5) days of the entry of this Order, the Parties are DIRECTED to file a joint supplemental submission addressing the three matters identified above. If the Parties disagree as to any matter, the joint submission shall separately state their respective positions. The Parties shall also submit a revised proposed order that identifies the payments to Fulginiti and Goldman with specificity and reflects any revisions warranted by their supplemental submission concerning final certification and retained jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs' Motion (DE 75 ) remains HELD IN ABEYANCE pending the Court's review of the supplemental submission.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed by the Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 10/5/2026. (lgib, )