United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JANE DOE 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
DEJA VU SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE JOINT MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III Judge
Jane Doe 1 filed a class and collective action complaint
against Defendants Deja Vu Services, Inc., DV Saginaw, LLC,
and Harry Mohney, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, and Michigan's
Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §
408.411. The parties reached-and the Court preliminarily
approved-a class settlement. See Op. and Order, ECF
No. 31. If granted final approval, the parties' $6.5
million settlement would resolve the claims of 45, 000-50,
000 current and former workers from 64 Deja-Vu-affiliated
night clubs. See Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 29-2.
The parties now move the Court to enjoin all pending
proceedings against Defendants in twelve different federal
and state courts. Mot., ECF No. 27.
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, authorizes district courts
to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of
their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages
and principles of law." Under the Act, the Court may
"issue such commands . . . as may be necessary or
appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration of
orders it has previously issued in exercise of jurisdiction
otherwise obtained." United States v. City of
Detroit, 329 F.3d 515, 522 (6th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(quoting United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434
U.S. 159, 172 (1977)). The Anti-Injunction Act, however,
limits the reach of the All Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2283.
"[T]he Anti-Injunction Act creates an absolute
prohibition against enjoining state court proceedings, unless
the injunction falls within one of three specifically defined
exceptions:" (1) "as expressly authorized by Act of
Congress"; (2) "where necessary in aid of its
jurisdiction"; or (3) "to protect or effectuate its
judgments." Martingale LLC v. City of
Louisville, 361 F.3d 297, 302 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive
Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 286 (1970) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 2283). The exceptions are "construed
narrowly" and "[a]ny doubts as to the propriety of
a federal injunction against state court proceedings should
be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to
proceed[.]" In re Diet Drugs, 282 F.3d 220, 233
(3d Cir. 2002). When a "federal case involves a complex
class settlement, " the district court may invoke the
All Writs Act to aid its jurisdiction. Lorillard Tobacco
Co. v. Chester, 589 F.3d 835, 848 (6th Cir. 2009)
(affirming district court's order enjoining parties from
proceeding in state-court litigation because of a tobacco
settlement's permanent injunction).
to issuing an injunction, a court must consider four
criteria: (1) whether the movant has shown a strong or
substantial likelihood or probability of success on the
merits; (2) whether the movant has shown irreparable injury;
(3) whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction would
cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public
interest would be served by issuing a preliminary injunction.
Mason County Med. Ass'n v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256,
261 (6th Cir. 1977).
the parties have presented the Court with a complex
class-action settlement. See Settlement Agreement,
ECF No. 29-2. The terms of the class settlement will resolve
Rule 23 and FLSA claims of all class members against all
Deja-Vu-affiliated businesses. The Court has granted
preliminary approval to the parties' proposed class
settlement. See Op. and Order, ECF No. 31. A
preliminary injunction on parallel proceedings is therefore
warranted because conflicting orders from other courts would
undermine the Court's jurisdiction and create a risk of
inconsistent judgments, duplicative litigation, and a lack of
finality for the class members and the defendants.
the parties have shown a strong likelihood of success on the
merits. The Court has granted preliminary approval to the
parties' settlement agreement and found the settlement
terms reasonable, fair, and adequate. Id. Since this
matter involves an injunction to protect the Court's
jurisdiction, no showing of irreparable injury is required.
See, e.g., In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d
1254, 1262 (2d Cir. 1984). The injunction will not cause harm
to others. The parties will provide notice of the proposed
settlement to class members who will have the opportunity to
opt-in or opt-out of the proposed class with the
understanding that the Court may enter a permanent injunction
if the settlement is approved. And the injunction serves the
public interest because it will bring finality to the
dispute, eliminate the risk of duplicative proceedings,
decrease the cost of litigation, eliminate the risk of
conflicting results, and allow the parties to implement the
negotiated class-wide settlement. Therefore, the Court will
exercise its authority under the All Writs Act to enjoin all
related proceedings against Defendants pending final approval
of the class-action settlement.
it is hereby ORDERED that the Joint Motion
for Preliminary Injunction  is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that all related cases and claims
against any Déjà Vu-affiliated nightclub and
Harry Mohney, including, but not limited to, the following
• Campbell, et al. v. Dean Martin Dr. - Las Vegas,
LLC, et al., Case No. A-14-709417-C (District Court
Clark County, Nevada);
• Roes 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-03616 (N.D. Cal.);
• Rodriguez, et al. v. CMSG Restaurant Group, LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01181 (S.D.N.Y);
• Campbell v. Las Vegas Bistro, LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-01842 (D. Nev.);
• Garcia v. Déjà vu Showgirls of
Tampa, LLC, et al., Case No. ...