Gale Carter, et al. v. Paschall Truck Lines, Inc., et al.

No. 5:18-cv-41-BJB · United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Paducah Division · February 13, 2026 · No. No. 5:18-cv-41-BJB

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted final approval of a collective-action settlement resolving truck drivers’ Fair Labor Standards Act claims against Paschall Truck Lines. The court approved service payments, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, settlement administration, and cy pres treatment of any unclaimed funds, entered final judgment, dismissed the action with prejudice as to the released claims, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

Holdings

  1. Dismissal of the action was appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, and the parties could proceed with the agreed settlement and allocation of settlement funds.
  2. The settlement was sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant final approval, including under the settlement-review standards commonly applied by courts in the Sixth Circuit.
  3. The proposed $10,000 service award to Gale Carter and $500 service awards to four other plaintiffs were permissible because their efforts benefited the collective and did not create inequitable treatment.
  4. The court retained continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the settlement and its administration, interpretation, enforcement, and consummation.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court had authority or a sufficient basis to review and approve the settlement of an FLSA collective action.
  2. Whether dismissal of the FLSA collective action was appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
  3. Whether the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under the settlement-review criteria applied by courts in the Sixth Circuit.
  4. Whether the proposed service awards, attorney fees, litigation costs, and cy pres distribution were permissible components of the settlement.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (11)

  • Maldonado v. WK Kellogg Co., No. 1:24-cv-90, 2025 WL 1427073, at *2, *4-5 (W.D. Mich. May 6, 2025)(followed in alternative analysis)
  • Mitcham v. Intrepid U.S.A., Inc., No. 3:17-cv-703, 2019 WL 5496023, at *2 (W.D. Ky. May 28, 2019)(relied upon)
  • Askew v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., 620 F. Supp. 3d 635, 637-40 (W.D. Ky. 2022)(relied upon)
  • Gilstrap v. Sushinati LLC, 734 F. Supp. 3d 710, 721, 724-26 (S.D. Ohio 2024)(relied upon and contrasted)
  • Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 805 (1985)(relied upon)
  • Steele v. Staffmark Investments, LLC, 172 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1026 (W.D. Tenn. 2016)(relied upon)
  • Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934)(distinguished in application)
  • Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994)(relied upon)
  • Does 1-2 v. Déjà Vu Services, Inc., 925 F.3d 886, 894-95 (6th Cir. 2019)(relied upon)
  • Hadix v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 895, 897 (6th Cir. 2003)(relied upon)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…