Highman v. Northstar Cafe Easton LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY HIGHMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	Case Number 2:23-cv-1757
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
NORTHSTAR CAFÉ EASTON, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Joint Motion for Approval of 216(b) Settlement and
Preliminary Approval of the Ohio Rule 23 Second Chance Settlement (ECF No. 60) brought by
Named Plaintiffs Anthony Highman, Sarah Bates, and Sarah Taylor (“Named Plaintiffs”), the
269 opt-in plaintiffs, and Defendants Northstar Café Easton, LLC, Northstar Café Westerville,
LLC, Northstar Café Liberty, LLC, Northstar Café Shaker Heights, LLC, Northstar Café Short
North, LLC, Northstar Café, LLC, and Organic Trails Cafes, LLC.
Named Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendants pursuant to Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., for alleged violations of the tip credit, tip pool, minimum
wage laws, and overtime laws. (ECF No. 1.) The case is a hybrid FLSA action and class action,
where the individuals who did not opt into the FLSA collective group can still recover as part of
a “second chance” Rule 23 class action. (Id.) Accordingly, there are two separate groups of
potential claimants: the FLSA group (“FLSA Collective Action Group”) and the class action
group (“Rule 23 Second Chance Class”).
Case: 2:23-cv-01757-EAS-EPD Doc #: 67 Filed: 02/12/26 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
The parties participated in mediation and notified the Court that they resolved the matter
on February 15, 2024. (ECF No. 26.) On April 15, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Motion for
Stipulated Court Supervised Notice and Approval of Settlement Pursuant to Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and Preliminary Approval of the Ohio Rule 23 Second Chance
Settlement. (ECF No. 35.) On February 4, 2025, the Court denied the Parties’ Joint Motion
without prejudice, raising questions about the Plaintiffs’ representative authority and how the
number of putative plaintiffs who joined the FLSA Settlement would impact the fairness of the
settlement. (ECF No. 37.) The Court instructed the Parties to file a separate motion for Court-
authorized notice and file a renewed motion for settlement approval after the members of the
FLSA Collective Action Group had been determined. (Id.)
The Parties filed the new Joint Motion for Court Approval of FLSA Notice on February
15, 2025. (ECF No. 38.) The Court granted the Motion on February 27, 2025 (ECF No. 39),
authorizing notice to be sent to the following group of individuals defined as:
All current and former tipped employees who worked for Northstar Café at
any time between June 12, 2020, through May 24, 2023, who were subject to
the tip credit.
Additionally, the Court found that the Parties’ proposed revised opt-in Notice Form and Claim
Form (“Notice Packet”) were satisfactory. (Id.)
On March 27, 2025, the settlement administrator mailed the Court-approved Notice
Packet to 1,139 individuals. A total of 272 FLSA individuals, including the named plaintiffs,
opted into the FLSA Collective Action Group. With the total number of FLSA members and
individual payment amounts determined, the parties refiled their Joint Motion for 216(b)
Settlement Approval and Preliminary Approval of the Ohio Rule 23 Second Chance Settlement.
(Jt. Mot., ECF No. 60.)
Case: 2:23-cv-01757-EAS-EPD Doc #: 67 Filed: 02/12/26 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
The Court summarizes the following relevant portions of the parties’ Settlement and
Release Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”):
1. 	The Total Settlement Amount is $835,000.00;
2. 	$330,201.22 of the Total Settlement Amount is allocated for the FLSA Collective
Action Group;
a. 	The 272 FLSA Collective Action Group members’ claims total $276,877.76,
leaving $53,323.46, which will be added to the Rule 23 Second Chance Class
settlement amount;
3. 	$153,734.65 of the Total Settlement Amount is allocated for the Rule 23 Second
Chance Class, prior to the addition of $53,323.46 mentioned above; and
4. 	$351,064.13 of the Total Settlement Amount is allocated for the payments of
counsel’s attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket expenses, litigation costs, the Claims
Administrator’s fees and costs, and the claimant representative’s service awards.
(Id..; ECF No. 60-1.)
After a review of the parties’ Settlement Agreement, the Court is satisfied that the
settlement reached is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute” under the Fair
Labor Standards Act. See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th
Cir. 1982); Foster v. Residential Programs, No. 2:19-cv-2358, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30963, at
*8–9 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2021) (Morrison, J.); Smith v. TradeGlobal, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-192,
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179622, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 29, 2020) (Black, J.).
Further, the Court finds that the requirements outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 are satisfied for class certification. As outlined in the Joint Motion, the prerequisites of Rule
23(a) are satisfied here: the class is so numerous (approximately 878 class members) that joinder
Case: 2:23-cv-01757-EAS-EPD Doc #: 67 Filed: 02/12/26 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
is impracticable; there are common questions of law or fact to the class, specifically that all
proposed class members were subjected to the same company-wide policies while working at
Northstar; the claims of the class representatives are typical of the claims of the class because,
again, they were subject to the same company-wide policies; and the class representatives will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class because there is no conflict between the
FLSA Collective Action Group and the Rule 23 Second Chance Class. (Jt. Mot., PageID 792–
96.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
Moreover, the proposed class satisfies one of the three categories of class actions
permitted by Rule 23(b) because: the proposed class members share a common set of core facts
and legal issues since they all worked for Northstar and were subject to the same company-wide
policies; and a proposed class action is superior to other available methods for adjudicating the
controversy because it would efficiently resolve the wage claims of hundreds of possible
claimants in a single action as opposed to hundreds of separate trials. (Jt. Mot., PageID 797–
800.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
Accordingly, the Joint Motion is GRANTED. (ECF No. 60.) It is ORDERED:
1. 	The Settlement Agreement is APPROVED in part and PRELIMINARILY
APPROVED in part. The FLSA Collective Action Group’s settlement outlined in
the Settlement Agreement is APPROVED. The Rule 23 Second Chance Class’s
settlement outlined in the Settlement Agreement is PRELIMINARILY
APPROVED.
2. 	Solely for the purposes of settlement, the Rule 23 Second Chance Class is certified,
consisting of the following:
Case: 2:23-cv-01757-EAS-EPD Doc #: 67 Filed: 02/12/26 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
All current and former tipped employees who worked for Northstar
Café at any time between June 12, 2020, through May 24, 2023, who
were subject to the tip credit and who did not opt into the FLSA
Collective Action.
3. 	Plaintiffs Anthony Highman, Sarah Bates, and Sarah Taylor are appointed the
claimants’ Representatives for the FLSA Collective Action Group and the Rule 23
Second Chance Class.
4. 	Rust Consulting will serve as the “Claims Administrator” in providing administration
services pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and is hereby authorized to establish a
Qualified Settlement Fund under 26 C.F.R. § 1.468B-1.
5. 	Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox LLP (including Robert DeRose) are approved as
claimants’ counsel.
6. 	The proposed notice to the Rule 23 class is APPROVED with the following
revisions:
a. 	The statement that the notice is “AUTHORIZED BY JUDGE EDMUND A.
SARGUS . . .” should be removed from the header. A similar statement may
be made in the body of the notice;
b. 	The number of opt-in plaintiffs in Section 1 should be updated;
c. 	The second sentence of Section 6.d. should say, “Thereafter, the checks will
become non-cashable.” The remaining part of the sentence should be deleted
because the Court has not yet approved the cy pres portion of the Settlement
Agreement.
d. 	The courtroom number listed in Section 7 should be changed to 311.
e. 	The second sentence of the second paragraph in Section 7 should be changed
to “If you wish to object at the hearing, you must . . .”.
Case: 2:23-cv-01757-EAS-EPD Doc #: 67 Filed: 02/12/26 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
f. 	Section 9 should allow class members 45 calendar days to mail objections;
and
g. 	Section 10 should state that class members may also call the Office of the
Clerk at (614) 719-3000.
7. 	The Court will conduct a Rule 23 fairness hearing on April 22, 2026 at 10 a.m. at
85 Marconi Boulevard, Courtroom 311, Columbus, Ohio, 43215, before the
Honorable Judge Edmund A. Sargus to determine the fairness of the Rule 23 Second
Chance Class settlement portion of the Settlement Agreement. Class Members
requesting exclusion from the class and/or objecting to the Settlement Agreement
must timely request exclusion and/or file objections in the time and manner set forth
in the proposed notice.
8. 	Claimants’ counsel will file their Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective
Action Settlement and motion for approval of attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses at
least fourteen days prior to the Rule 23 fairness hearing. Claimants’ counsel must
attach any objections received to their Motion for Final Approval.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2/12/2026 	s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE 	EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:23-cv-01757-EAS-EPD Doc #: 67 Filed: 02/12/26 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>