Mustard et al v. City of Vallejo

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/19/2017 ORDERING the court APPROVES the Settlement Agreement, and following conclusion of the claims period, anticipates dismiss this action with prejudice; The court reserves jurisdiction over this Action for the purposes of entering dismissal and enforcing the Settlement Agreement. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

MAT MUSTARD, BENJAMIN HILL, et al. on ) Case No. 2:16-cv-01485-KJM-CKD
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated )
individuals,
) ORDER GRANTING
) APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF VALLEJO,
)
Defendant.
)
)
)

16
ORDER

17
18
19

The court has carefully reviewed the Settlement Agreement, the Stipulation and proposed
Order, and relevant Exhibits provided by the parties.

20

The court notes that the parties have strongly contested liability. In particular, defendants

21

vigorously disputed whether the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) applies to this case while

22

plaintiffs strongly believed defendants liable for the alleged failure to pay adequate wages and

23

were prepared to litigate the question. See ECF No. 28-1 at 1–2. The parties also had a bona

24

fide dispute regarding plaintiffs’ treatment under the FLSA regarding wages paid to plaintiffs in

25

lieu of health benefit payments. Id. at 1. Having reviewed the parties’ Settlement Agreement

26

resolving their differences, the court finds the proposed distribution to each Plaintiff is fair in that

27

/////

28
ORDER FOR APPROVAL
OF SETTLEMENT

Mustard, et al. v. City of Vallejo
Case No. 2:16-cv-01485-KJM-CKD

1
2

the amount correlates directly to the amount of overtime hours each Plaintiff worked. See id. at
2.

3
Based on the review of the record, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

4
5
6

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1.

The Settlement Agreement filed by the parties on the court’s docket is approved as

7

reflecting a fair and reasonable resolution of the issues. See Hand v. Dionex Corp.,

8

No. 06–1318, 2007 WL 3383601, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 13, 2007) (approving private

9

settlement agreement under FLSA); see also Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United

10

States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352–54 (11th Cir. 1982) (“When employees bring a private

11

action for back wages under the FLSA, and present to the district court a proposed

12

settlement, the district court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the

13

settlement for fairness” . . . [and a] “bona fide dispute over FLSA coverage [and

14

liability]”).

15

2.

Because this case represents an exception to the “normal rule that courts do not rule

16

on the merits of a privately negotiated settlement agreement,” Hand, 2007 WL

17

3383601, at *1, the court APPROVES the Settlement Agreement, and following

18

conclusion of the claims period, anticipates dismiss this action with prejudice.

19
20

3.

The court reserves jurisdiction over this Action for the purposes of entering dismissal
and enforcing the Settlement Agreement.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED: May 19, 2017.

23
24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
ORDER FOR APPROVAL
OF SETTLEMENT

Mustard, et al. v. City of Vallejo
Case No. 2:16-cv-01485-KJM-CKD