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
Plaintiffs,
v.
Ayvaz Pizza, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND AYVAZ DEFENDANTS
The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class and Collective Action Settlement Between Plaintiff and Defendants Ayvaz Pizza, LLC,
Ayvaz Holdings, LLC, Shoukat Dhanani, and Usman Dhanani, hereby ORDERS and
ADJUDGES:
1. The Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Between Plaintiff and the
Ayvaz Defendants, including the Settlement Agreement attached thereto as Exhibit 1, is hereby
GRANTED.
2. Under R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the following Proposed Class is certified for settlement
purposes:
All former delivery driver employees employed at one or more of the Ayvaz
Defendants’ Minnesota stores at any time between September 28, 2021 and
September 21, 2025.
CASE 0:22-cv-01622-KMM-DLM Doc. 356 Filed 10/24/25 Page 1 of 4

2
3. The Proposed Class is also certified, for settlement purposes, as a collective action
under Section 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
4. For the purposes of approving the proposed settlement, the Proposed Class meets
the requirements for certification of a settlement class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Rules
of Civil Procedure: (a) the Proposed Class is ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all
members of the Class is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law or fact common to the
Proposed Class; (c) certain claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of members of the Proposed
Class; (d) Plaintiff and his counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Proposed
Class; (e) common issues predominate over individual issues; and (f) a class action is superior to
the other available methods for an efficient resolution of this controversy.
5. For purposes of approving the proposed settlement, that the members of the
Proposed Class are “similarly situated” for purposes of certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216.
6. The Court finds that it will likely be able to approve the settlement, after notice to
the class, because the settlement appears fair, reasonable, and adequate considering the factors
listed in Rule 23(e)(2). Based on a review of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court
preliminarily finds that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel have adequately represented the class, the
settlement is the result of arms-length negotiations, the relief provided to the class is adequate,
taking into account the costs, risks, and delays of trial and appeal, the effectiveness of the proposed
method for distributing relief to the class, the terms of the proposed attorneys’ fees, including the
timing of payment, and that the settlement treats class members equitably relative to each other.
7. The Notices of Settlement and the procedure set forth in the Settlement and Release
Agreement for providing notice to the Class will provide the best notice practicable, satisfy the
CASE 0:22-cv-01622-KMM-DLM Doc. 356 Filed 10/24/25 Page 2 of 4

3
notice requirements of Rule 23(e), adequately advise the Proposed Class of their rights under the
Settlement Agreement and, therefore, meet the requirements of due process and are approved.
a. The Notices of Settlement fairly, plainly, accurately, and reasonably inform the
Proposed Class of: (1) appropriate information about the nature of this Action, the
definition of the class, the identity of Class Counsel, and the essential terms of the
settlement, including the plan of distribution; (2) appropriate information about
Plaintiff’s and Class Counsel’s forthcoming applications for the class
representative’s service payment and the Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and
litigation costs award; (3) appropriate information about how to claim a share of
the proceeds under the settlement, and about the Proposed Class members’ right to
appear through counsel if they desire; (4) appropriate information about how to
object to the settlement or submit an opt-out request, if a Proposed Class member
wishes to do so; and (5) appropriate instructions about how to obtain additional
information regarding this case and settlement.
b. The proposed plan for mailing the Notices of Settlement and the Claim Form by
first class mail and email to the Proposed Class members’ last known addresses is
an appropriate method, reasonably designed to reach all individuals who would be
bound by the settlement. Likewise, the proposed plan of allowing the third-party
claims administrator to take reasonable measures to update contact information is
likewise appropriate.
8. The attorneys’ fees and request for reimbursement of reasonable costs related to the
litigation are preliminarily approved. The fees and costs will be approved after the final hearing
occurs, taking into account any objections.
CASE 0:22-cv-01622-KMM-DLM Doc. 356 Filed 10/24/25 Page 3 of 4

4
9. The proposed service award is preliminarily approved. The service award will be
approved after the final hearing occurs, taking into account any objections.
10. The administration fees, to be reimbursed from the Settlement, are reasonable and
therefore approved.
11. The Parties are ordered to carry out the settlement according to its terms.
12. A Final Fairness Hearing will be held on February 9, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in
Courtroom 14W at the Diana E. Murphy United States Courthouse, 300 South 4th Street,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415. Any objectors wishing to be heard through themselves or counsel
must comply with the terms of the Class Notice to submit written objections and to appear at the
Final Hearing to present such objections.
13. That any pleadings in support of the proposed settlement shall be filed by at least
10 days before the Final Fairness Hearing. In the event that the settlement is not finally approved,
or otherwise does not become effective, the Parties shall revert to their respective positions before
entering into the settlement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 24, 2025
s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:22-cv-01622-KMM-DLM Doc. 356 Filed 10/24/25 Page 4 of 4