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)
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?