Saxby v. Jash, Inc. et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1) The parties' 17 joint motion to approve settlement is GRANTED; 2) This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear their own costs; A separate Final Judgment will enter. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 8/1/2022. (es, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
DOUGLAS SAXBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JASH, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-cv-140-ECM
[WO]
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Now pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to approve settlement
(doc. 17) filed on July 25, 2022. For the reasons explained below, the motion is due to be
granted.
Plaintiff Douglas Saxby brings this action against Defendants Jash, Inc. and Sanjeev
Patel, asserting violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
(“FLSA”). The Plaintiff alleges that he worked for the Defendants from March 2020 until
January 2022, and that he was not paid a lawful minimum wage for all hours worked or an
overtime premium for hours worked in excess of forty hours each week. He seeks
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The
Defendants filed an Answer in which they denied the Plaintiff’s allegations and asserted
that the Plaintiff had never been employed by the Defendants.
The parties now move the Court to approve their settlement of the Plaintiff’s FLSA
claim, which they reached during arms-length negotiations. The Court has a duty to
scrutinize the proposed settlement for fairness. Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States,
679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982). A settlement is fair when it is a “reasonable
compromise” or a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA
provisions.” Id. at 1354–55. Upon review of the proposed settlement, the Court finds that
the parties have reached an agreement based on a negotiated, reasonable compromise of a
bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions. Under the settlement, the Plaintiff receives
$20,000.00, which is an amount that compensates him for an assumed fifteen hours of
uncompensated work at the applicable minimum wage per week during his alleged tenure
working for the Defendants. Further, the Court finds that the agreement reflects a fair and
reasonable resolution of the dispute between the parties. The monetary sum the Plaintiff
receives in this settlement is reasonable particularly given the Defendants’ position that the
Plaintiff was never employed by the Defendants.
The parties also request that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, and for good cause, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The parties’ joint motion to approve settlement (doc. 17) is GRANTED;
2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear their
own costs.
A separate Final Judgment will enter.
DONE this 1st day of August, 2022.
/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?