ORDER This wage-and-hour suit concluded with a class settlement. After the Court granted final approval to the class settlement, Class Member Musa Liman (“Liman”), who did not opt out, sought to pursue wage-and-hour claims on an individual basis. Pending before the Court is a motion by Defendants to enjoin Liman’s pursuit of those claims and a motion by Liman to belatedly opt out of the class settlement. The Court denies Liman’s motion because he has not established excusable neglect. The Court denies Defendants’ motion seeking to enjoin Liman from pursuing claims because the parties agreed to litigate disputes between them in arbitration and the substantive issues raised by Defendants’ motion can be addressed by the arbitrator. I. BACKGROUND A. Litigation and Settlement of this Class and Collective Action In September 2013, Named Plaintiffs Michael Spagnuoli, Kellie Shea, and Joseph Veselak, filed a putative class and collective complaint against Defendants Louie’s Seafood Restaurant, LLC (“Louie’s”), Martin Picone; and Michael Guinnane. (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 1.) The Named Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) by failing to pay overtime compensation. (Id.) In March 2015, Shea voluntarily withdrew her claims after it was determined that she had submitted fraudulent documents in discovery. (ECF No. 62 at 2 n. 1.) On December 29, 2015, Magistrate Judge Lindsay conditionally certified a collective action under the FLSA for “waiters and servers with respect to overtime claim.” (Order on Motion to Certify FLSA Collective Action, ECF No. 62 at 11.) The notice of the collective action (“Collective Action Notice”) was mailed to the potential opt-in employees on January 28, 2016 in order to inform them notice of the suit and give them an opportunity to opt into the collective action. (ECF No. 70.) That same day, in accordance with Judge Lindsay’s order, Defendants also posted the Collective Action Notice on a corkboard outside the employee’s entrance to Louie’s kitchen. (ECF No. 62 at 14, ECF No. 70.) The Collective Action Notice remained posted on the corkboard through September 27, 2018. (Picone Aff. 9, ECF No. 124; Graff Aff. Ex. C (pictures of posted notice).)1 This was a conspicuous location that any employee had to pass by while at work. (Id.) Approximately twenty individuals filed consents to join the collective action. In August 2015 — prior to Judge Lindsay’s ruling on the conditional certification motion — a number of Defendants’ employees had signed arbitration agreements. The Named Plaintiffs disputed whether these agreements were proper and valid. (ECF No. 68.) After the Named Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike these arbitration agreements, Defendants agreed to waive the enforcement of these arbitration agreements for any current or former waiter or server who optedin to the conditional class. (ECF No. 68.) In light of that waiver, on February 5, 2016, Judge Lindsay permitted the Named Plaintiffs to send a second copy of the Collective Action Notice to any employee who signed an arbitration agreement. (ECF No. 68.) After undertaking additional discovery, the parties agreed on a class-wide settlement and, on December 16, 2016, the Named Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement. (ECF No. 100.) At the Court’s urging, the parties made various changes to the settlement agreement and the class notice. (See ECF Nos. 101-104.) On September 30, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved the parties’ proposed settlement (the “Class Settlement”) and the notice (the “Class Action Notice”) and scheduled a final fairness hearing for February 2, 2018. Pursuant to the Court’s September 30, 2017 Order, the Class Action Notice informed the Class Members that they had until December 29, 2017 to opt-out of the settlement, object to the settlement, or file a claim form. On October 30, 2017, the Class Action Notice was mailed by Simpluris, the claims administrator, to 1,212 class members. (ECF No. 112-1 at 5.) 101 notices were returned as undeliverable and 135 notices were re-mailed to updated addresses. (Id.) 144 employees, which constituted 11.88 percent of the Class, returned claim forms. (Id. at 6.) Only one Class Member opted out of the settlement and no Class Members objected to the settlement. (Id. at 15.) No Class Members appeared at the fairness hearing. On September 27, 2018, the Court granted final approval to the Class Settlement. The Order provides that “the Court will retain jurisdiction over the case and the Agreement.” (Id.) B. Class Member Liman and the Post-Judgment Litigation Concerning Liman Liman is a former employee of Louie’s, who is a member of the Class. As explained infra, months after the Court granted final approval to the Class Settlement, Liman and his attorneys contacted defense counsel in an effort to pursue alleged wage-and-hour claims. Liman now seeks to opt out of the Class Settlement, contending that he never received the Class Action Notice. Liman initially worked at Louie’s from June 2014 to November 2015. (Picone Aff.
2, 10 & n. 1; Graff Aff., Exs. A, B.) Liman then returned to work at Louie’s in November 2016 and worked there until September 16, 2018. (Id.) During his initial period of employment at Louie’s, Liman executed an arbitration agreement in approximately August 2015. Liman’s initial period of employment with Louie’s ended on November 29, 2015. Records indicate that Liman was mailed a copy of the Collective Action Notice on January 28, 2016. (Graff Aff., Ex. G; ECF No. 70.) Records also indicate that, shortly thereafter, Liman was sent a second copy of the Collective Action Notice because Liman was one of the employees who had signed a disputed arbitration agreement. (Graff Aff., Ex. H; ECF No. 68.) Liman asserts that he never received any mailings concerning the instant lawsuit and insists that he did not learn about this lawsuit until March 2019. (Liman Aff.
