Thompson et al v. Corizon Inc

Filing 15

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Approve/Approval and Motion to Dismiss. The complaint and all claims in this action against defts are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 4/1/13. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
CHRISTY THOMPSON, FOEST RATHEY-WITHERSPOON,
AND WINONA ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
v.

PLAINTIFFS

Case No. 5:12CV00164 KGB

CORIZON, INC.,
f/k/a CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.
d/b/a CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS

DEFENDANTS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiffs Christy Thompson, Foest Rathey-Witherspoon, and Winona Robinson filed this
matter on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, asserting claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Before the Court is the parties’ joint
motion to approve settlement agreement and to dismiss the case with prejudice (Dkt. No. 11).
The parties have reached a settlement agreement in this case and hereby request that this Court
approve the settlement and dismiss the case with prejudice.
The parties submitted the Settlement Agreement and Release to the Court under seal, and
the Court has reviewed the terms of the parties’ agreement. Plaintiffs purport to settle only their
individual claims. The Eighth Circuit has not directly addressed the factors to be considered in
deciding motions for approval of FLSA settlements. Other district courts have scrutinized such
settlements for fairness in two steps. “First, the court should consider whether the compromise is
fair and reasonable to the employee (factors ‘internal’ to the compromise). If the compromise is
reasonable to the employee the court should inquire whether the compromise otherwise
impermissibly frustrates implementation of the FLSA (factors ‘external’ to the compromise).
The court should approve the compromise only if the compromise is reasonable to the employee

and furthers implementation of the FLSA in the workplace.” Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F.
Supp. 2d 1227, 1241 (M.D. Fla. 2010).
The record before the Court does not indicate how the settlement figures were calculated.
However, the sealed documents include settlement amounts and representations regarding those
amounts as agreed to by all parties. The pending motion to approve the settlement agreement
also indicates that “[t]he parties jointly represent to the Court that the amount Defendant is
agreeing to pay Plaintiffs under the Settlement Agreement is very close to the full value of
Plaintiffs’ asserted claims and that the compromise reflects a balancing of interests by both sides
with regard to the risks of continued litigation, the possibility of an unfavorable outcome for
either side, the delay inherent in litigation, and the additional fees and costs associated with
continued litigation” (Dkt. No. 11, at 2). For these reasons, and based upon the Court’s review
of other information in the pleadings filed and language in the settlement agreement and release,
the Court determines that plaintiffs’ recovery is a reasonable approximation of amounts owed
under the FLSA. The Court approves the Settlement Agreement and Release of plaintiffs’ FLSA
claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the complaint and all claims in this action against
defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice.
The Court retains complete jurisdiction for 30 days to vacate this order and to reopen the
action if it is satisfactorily shown that settlement has not been completed and further litigation is
necessary.
SO ORDERED this 1st day of April, 2013.

________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge
2