Brian Dempsey, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals v. Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Dempsey · United States District Court for the District of Nevada · December 10, 2025 · No. 3:24-cv-00269-ART-CSD

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada grants preliminary approval of a proposed class and FLSA collective action settlement in an overtime wage case brought by Brian Dempsey against Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, Inc. The court conditionally certifies a settlement class of Nevada assistant store managers, approves the proposed notice plan and settlement administrator, and preliminarily approves representative payments, attorneys’ fees, and litigation costs. The court schedules a final fairness hearing for May 11, 2026.

Holdings

  1. The proposed settlement class satisfies Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) because it is sufficiently numerous, presents common questions, the representative claims are typical, the representatives and counsel are adequate, common issues predominate, and a class action is superior for settlement purposes.
  2. The proposed FLSA collective may proceed for settlement purposes because its members share material factual and legal issues concerning wages and overtime pay.
  3. The proposed $450,000 settlement warrants preliminary approval because it appears fair, adequate, and reasonable and falls within the range of possible approval.
  4. The proposed notice plan was constitutionally sound and sufficient to inform class members of the settlement, their rights, and the final approval hearing.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the proposed settlement class satisfied the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for settlement purposes.
  2. Whether the proposed FLSA collective members were similarly situated and could be conditionally certified for settlement purposes.
  3. Whether the proposed settlement fell within the range of possible approval and appeared fair, reasonable, and adequate at the preliminary approval stage.
  4. Whether the proposed notice plan, settlement administrator, representative payments, attorney-fee request, and litigation-cost request should be preliminarily approved.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (19)

  • Alberto v. GMRI, Inc., 252 F.R.D. 652, 658 (E.D. Cal. 2008)(followed)
  • West v. Circle K Stores, Inc., No. 040438, 2006 WL 1652598, at *2, *9 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2006)(followed)
  • In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 227 F.R.D. 553, 556 (W.D. Wash. 2004)(followed)
  • Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090, 1109, 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
  • Diaz v. Trust Territory of Pacific Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)
  • National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 525 (C.D. Cal. 2004)(followed)
  • Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 934 F.3d 918, 947 (9th Cir. 2019)(limited)
  • Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2022)(limited)
  • Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1030, 1035-37 (N.D. Cal. 2016)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…