Poehler v. Fenwick et al

Filing 64

ORDER: granting the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement of FLSA Action 59 ; the District Court of Arizona hereby retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties, their attorneys, and this action as may be necessary or appropriate to implement and/or enforce the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 5/19/16.(REW)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Robin L Poehler, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-15-01161-PHX-ESW Debra Fenwick, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court has considered the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Settlement of 16 FLSA Action (Doc. 59) and Declaration of Jarrett J. Haskovec in Support of Motion to 17 Approve Settlement of FLSA Action (Doc. 60). 18 In the context of suits brought directly by employees against their employer to 19 recover back wages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et 20 seq. (“FLSA”), the parties must present any proposed settlement to the district court, and 21 the Court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness. 22 See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982) 23 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 216); see also Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945) 24 (requiring the approval of the court or Department of Labor for FLSA settlements, and 25 explaining the deferential standard for judicial review when the parties are represented by 26 counsel). Because this case has been brought under the FLSA for the recovery of back 27 wages, the parties seek judicial approval of the settlement prior to entering judgment in 28 this action. The parties have attached the proposed settlement agreement to the joint 1 motion. (Doc. 59-1, Ex. A.) The Court may approve the settlement if it reflects a 2 “reasonable compromise over issues.” Lynn’s, 679 F.2d at 1354. 3 The Court has reviewed the complaint, the parties’ joint motion, and the terms of 4 the proposed settlement agreement, and finds that the settlement agreement reflects a fair 5 and reasonable resolution of all issues. The parties have a bona fide dispute over both 6 liability and damages regarding statutory coverage and wages owed under the Fair Labor 7 Standards Act and Arizona Minimum Wage Act. The proposed settlement agreement 8 does not appear to be the product of collusion between the parties, nor does it appear to 9 be the result of fraud or overreaching on the part of Defendant. The Court concludes that 10 the proposed settlement agreement should be approved as a fair and reasonable 11 compromise of a bona fide dispute under the FLSA. 12 13 IT IS ORDERED granting the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement of FLSA Action (Doc. 59). 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the District Court of Arizona hereby retains 15 continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties, their attorneys, and this action as 16 may be necessary or appropriate to implement and/or enforce the Settlement Agreement. 17 Dated this 19th day of May, 2016. 18 19 20 Honorable Eileen S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -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?