Adams v. Centerfold Entertainment Club, Inc. et al

Filing 22

ORDER re 21 Stipulation filed by Amy Adams. The Court has already dismissed this case, its October 10, 2018 Judgment did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court now clarifies that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on November 2, 2018. (hnc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
AMY ADAMS
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 6:17-cv-6047

CENTERFOLD ENTERTAINMENT
CLUB, INC.; JESSIE ORRELL;
RAYMOND ORRELL; and DIANA
DAY

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice. (ECF No.
21). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
On June 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. Code Ann.
§§ 11-4-201, et seq. On September 14, 2018, the parties notified the Court that this case had been
settled and that dismissal paperwork would be forthcoming. On October 10, 2018, the Court
entered a judgment that dismissed this case pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement. On
October 24, 2018, the parties filed the instant stipulation of dismissal, asking the Court to dismiss
this case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The parties
also state that the Court need not conduct a reasonableness review of the parties’ FLSA settlement,
given that this case is not a collective action, Plaintiffs were represented by counsel throughout the
case, and because the parties wish for their settlement agreement to remain confidential.
At first blush, it appears that the Court need not take action regarding the instant stipulation,
given that the Court previously entered a judgment dismissing this case on October 10, 2018.
However, the Court notes that its October 10, 2018 judgment does not specify whether this case

was dismissed with or without prejudice. The instant stipulation asks that the Court dismiss the
action with prejudice. Thus, the Court will take up the instant stipulation and consider the relief
requested therein—that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice and do so without conducting a
reasonableness review of the parties’ settlement agreement.
Several courts have held that settlement agreements resolving wage claims are subject to
court approval to ensure that the parties are not negotiating around statutory minimum wages. See,
e.g., Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace, and Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 497 F.3d 615, 631 (6th Cir. 2007); Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S., 679 F.2d 1350, 1353
(11th Cir. 1982); Cruthis v. Vision’s, No. 4:12-CV-00244, 2014 WL 4092325 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 19,
2014). Other courts, including this Court, have held that court approval of an FLSA settlement is
unnecessary when the lawsuit is not a collective action, all plaintiffs have been represented by
counsel throughout the entirety of the case, and the parties wish for their agreement to remain
private. See, e.g., Zeznanski v. First Step, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-6023-SOH (W.D. Ark. Oct. 5, 2017),
ECF No. 25; Schneider v. Habitat for Humanity Int’l, Inc., No. 5:14-CV-5230-TLB, 2015 WL
500835, at *3 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 5, 2015).
This case is not a collective action; Plaintiff has been represented by counsel throughout
the course of this litigation; and the parties agree that their settlement agreement is confidential.
Thus, it appears to the Court that the settlement agreement in this case is of the type that does not
require court approval. See Schneider, 2015 WL 500835, at *3. That being said, in the past, parties
have nonetheless submitted wage and hour settlement agreements for review while arguing that
judicial approval was not necessary. The parties have not submitted their settlement agreement in
this case and, thus, the Court has not reviewed the parties’ settlement agreement in this matter.
The Court now turns to the parties’ request that this case be dismissed with prejudice.

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 governs the dismissal of actions. An action may be dismissed
by “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
Upon consideration, the Court finds that good cause has been shown for dismissal of the
case. Although the Court has already dismissed this case, its October 10, 2018 judgment did not
specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court now clarifies
that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for the
purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of November, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

3