Poehler v. Fenwick et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Robin L Poehler,
Debra Fenwick, et al.,
The Court has considered the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Settlement of
FLSA Action (Doc. 59) and Declaration of Jarrett J. Haskovec in Support of Motion to
Approve Settlement of FLSA Action (Doc. 60).
In the context of suits brought directly by employees against their employer to
recover back wages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et
seq. (“FLSA”), the parties must present any proposed settlement to the district court, and
the Court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.
See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982)
(citing 29 U.S.C. § 216); see also Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945)
(requiring the approval of the court or Department of Labor for FLSA settlements, and
explaining the deferential standard for judicial review when the parties are represented by
counsel). Because this case has been brought under the FLSA for the recovery of back
wages, the parties seek judicial approval of the settlement prior to entering judgment in
this action. The parties have attached the proposed settlement agreement to the joint
motion. (Doc. 59-1, Ex. A.) 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 complaint, the parties’ joint motion, and the terms of
the proposed settlement agreement, and finds that the settlement agreement reflects a fair
and reasonable resolution of all issues. The parties have a bona fide dispute over both
liability and damages regarding statutory coverage and wages owed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Arizona Minimum Wage Act. The proposed settlement agreement
does not appear to be the product of collusion between the parties, nor does it appear to
be the result of fraud or overreaching on the part of Defendant. The Court concludes that
the proposed settlement agreement should be approved as a fair and reasonable
compromise of a bona fide dispute under the FLSA.
IT IS ORDERED granting the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement of FLSA
Action (Doc. 59).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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.
Dated this 19th day of May, 2016.
Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge
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?