Lopez et al v. Arizona Public Service Company

Filing 38

ORDER granting 36 Stipulation to Approve Settlement Agreement and Dismiss Lawsuit with Prejudice. Each opt-in Plaintiff who is qualified to participate in the settlement under the Settlement Agreement and who files a Consent Form on or before 2/26/10, shall be covered by this Order approving the settlement. ORDER that the Court will retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the Settlement Agreement (see order). Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 1/26/10. (TLJ)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George M. Lopez; William Lee Plummer;) Ralph C. Galindo; and a class of others) ) similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Arizona Public Service Company, an) ) Arizona corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) )

No. CV 08-1843-PHX-JAT ORDER

Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Dismiss Lawsuit with Prejudice (Doc. # 36). The Court grants the parties' motion. Pursuant to Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982), the parties request this Court to enter an Order that specifically approves the parties' Settlement Agreement. In Lynn's, the Eleventh Circuit held: There are only two ways in which back wage claims arising under the FLSA can be settled or compromised by Employees. First, under section 216(c), the Secretary of Labor is authorized to supervise payment to employees of unpaid wages owed to them. An employee who accepts such a payment supervised by the Secretary thereby waives his right to bring suit for both the unpaid wages and for liquidated damages, provided the employer pays in full the back wages.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The only other route for compromise of FLSA claims is provided in the context of suits brought directly by employees against their employer under section 216(b) to recover back wages for FLSA violations. When employees bring a private action for back wages under the FLSA, and present to the district court a proposed settlement, the district court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness. Lynn's, 679 F.2d at 1352-53. Normally, the Court does not rule on a private settlement negotiated between parties. However, because Plaintiffs filed a FLSA action against Defendant, the parties must seek approval of their stipulated settlement in order to ensure the enforceability of the Settlement Agreement. Id. See also In re Sepracor Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litigation, 2009 WL 3253947, *2 (D. Ariz. 2009); Thornton v. Solutionone Cleaning Concepts, Inc., 2007 WL 210586, *3 (E.D. Cal. 2007). The Court may approve the settlement if it reflects a "reasonable compromise over issues." Lynn's, 679 F.2d at 1354. The Court has reviewed the proposed Settlement Agreement and finds that it does in fact reflect a fair and reasonable resolution of the issues. Defendant strongly contested liability under the FLSA, claiming that Plaintiffs were paid for the time spent donning and doffing, clearing security screens, and attending meetings. Further, even if the Plaintiffs

could have proven liability, they would have faced difficultly establishing that each Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week. Finally, the proposed distribution to each Plaintiff is fair and equitable because the distribution directly relates to each Plaintiff's length of employment with Defendant and the amount of hours each Plaintiff worked for APS. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Dismiss Lawsuit with Prejudice (Doc. # 36) is granted. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over wages owed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and therefore approves the settlement. Each opt-in Plaintiff who is qualified to participate in the settlement under the Settlement

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Agreement and who files a Consent Form on or before February 26, 2010, shall be covered by this Order approving the settlement. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Court will retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the Settlement Agreement DATED this 26th day of January, 2010.

-3-