Addison v. Frito-Lay Inc

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION JAMES ADDISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated PLAINTIFF V. No. 3:22-cv-314-DPM FRITO-LAY INC. DEFENDANT ORDER Joint report, Doc. 12, appreciated. The class settlement in Stevens resolved any claim Addison might have had as a class member.

Because he didn’t opt out by the deadline, he’s bound. It’s up to him whether to cash his settlement check. The collective presents more tangled circumstances. Unlike in the class situation, Addison must opt in by word or deed. He didn’t file a consent form. And he hasn’t cashed his check. Under the general principles about collectives and the settlement terms, he’s not yet a member of the group or bound by the settlement. Beauford v. Actionlink, LLC, 781 F.3d 396, 405-06 (8th Cir. 2015). The preclusive effect of the class settlement on the collective action issues is, moreover, beyond the scope of the Court’s recent inquiry and the joint report. Some of Addison’s case will therefore go forward for now. Order, Doc. 11, amended as specified. Motion, Doc. 5, partly granted and partly denied. Answer or Rule 12(b) motion due by 22 September 2023.

So Ordered.

DP. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge _ 30 nvgust 2D23 Be