Stotesbery v. Ayvaz Pizza, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
John Stotesbery,
On behalf of himself and those
similarly situated,
Case No. 0:22-cv-01622-KMM-DLM
Plaintiff,
v.
Ayvaz Pizza, LLC, et al.
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT WITH
AYVAZ DEFENDANTS
The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Final Approval
of Class and Collective Action Settlement with Ayvaz Defendants and held a Final Fairness
Hearing on February 9, 2026, at 9:30 AM, in Courtroom 14W at the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415. Based
on the motion, and on the entire record in this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	The Motion for Final Approval of Settlement with Ayvaz Defendants is hereby
GRANTED.
2. 	The class members have received the best notice of the settlement practicable under
the circumstances. Individual notice has been sent via U.S. mail and electronic mail to all
members who could be identified through reasonable effort. The notice clearly and
CASE 0:22-cv-01622-KMM-DLM Doc. 365 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
concisely stated in plain language the nature of the action, the class definition, and the class
members’ options. See Rule 23(c)(2)(B); (e)(1).
3. 	The settlement agreement entered into between the parties is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). The class representative and class counsel have
adequately represented the class, the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length, and the
proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other. Id. at Rule 23(e)(2)(A), (B),
and (D). Most importantly, the relief provided to the class is adequate taking into account
the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, the effectiveness of any proposed method for
distributing relief to the class, terms of any proposed attorneys’ fee award, including the
timing of payment, and any related agreements. Id. at Rule 23(e)(2)(C). The Court hereby
APPROVES the parties’ settlement.
4. 	Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees in the amount of one-third of the settlement
fund, or $333,333.33 is reasonable. On October 24, 2025, this Court provisionally
approved this request for attorneys’ fees as reasonable, subject to any objections raised by
class members after they received notice of the settlement. See ECF # 356, ¶ 8. Now that
the notice process is complete, the Court notes there are no objections to the requested
attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $333,333.33 is
APPROVED.
5. 	Plaintiff’s counsel request reimbursement of advanced litigation expenses in the
amount of $35,063.03. These costs were reasonable and necessary for the prosecution of
this case. Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount
of $35,063.03 is hereby APPROVED.
CASE 0:22-cv-01622-KMM-DLM Doc. 365 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
6. 	The 	Court 	previously 	approved 	administrative 	expenses 	in 	the 	amount 	of
$15,850.00 	as 	reasonable, 	and 	hereby 	confirms 	that 	the 	administrative 	costs 	are
APPROVED.
7. 	Plaintiff requests a service award in the amount of $10,000 to John Stotesbery.
Mr. Stotesbery’s efforts in this case have resulted in thousands of his co-workers receiving
substantial relief. The service award of $10,000 to John Stotesbery is reasonable and hereby
APPROVED.
8. 	The parties are ORDERED to carry out the settlement pursuant to its terms. The
Court will retain jurisdiction over any disputes that may arise while the settlement is carried
out.
Date: February 13, 2026
s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:22-cv-01622-KMM-DLM Doc. 365 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 3