Michael Hummel et al v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.

Filing 54

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 53 Motion for Settlement (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
MICHAEL HUMMEL,

7

Case No. 14-cv-03683-JSC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT

9
BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 53

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff Michael Hummel, a former relief driver for Defendant Bimbo Bakeries USA

14

(“Bimbo”), brought suit on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals alleging

15

violation of state and federal wage and hour laws. Following final approval of a class action

16

settlement in the Central District of California, Plaintiff dismissed his class allegations leaving his

17

individual state law wage and hour claims and a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) overtime

18

claim. On August 19, 2015, the parties notified the Court that they had settled this matter and

19

sought leave to file their Joint Motion for Approval of the Settlement Agreement under seal.1

20

(Dkt. No. 50.) The Court granted that motion in part (Dkt. No. 51) and the parties refiled the Joint

21

Motion for Approval of the Settlement Agreement on the public docket on September 23, 2015.

22

(Dkt. No. 53).
The “proper procedure for obtaining court approval of the settlement of FLSA claims is for

23
24

the parties to present to the court a proposed settlement, upon which the district court may enter a

25

stipulated judgment only after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Lee v. The Timberland

26

Co., C 07–2367–JF, 2008 WL 2492295, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2008); see also Lynn’s Food

27
1

28

Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 12 & 13.)

1

Stores Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982). “Approval is warranted if the

2

settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.” Duran v. Hershey Co., No.

3

14-CV-01184-RS, 2015 WL 4999511, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015) (internal citation a

4

quotation marks omitted).

5

Having reviewed the settlement, the Court finds that it is fair and reasonable. This matter

6

involves a genuine and fact-intensive dispute. By settling, each side has chosen to avoid the risk

7

and expense of trial. The settlement amount is fair and reasonable as demonstrated by the

8

calculations contained in the motion such that Plaintiff will receive a substantial payment, relative

9

to his claimed damages, in exchange for releasing his claims. Further, the settlement was the

10

result of arms-length negotiations between Bimbo and Plaintiff’s counsel.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

12

1. Approval of the settlement agreement, including the release contained therein, the

13

payments to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel’s attorney fees and costs, is GRANTED.

14

2. All parties are bound by the terms of the settlement agreement.

15

3. This action, Michael Hummel v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., No. 14-cv-03683–JSC, is

16

hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and on the merits. The Court reserves and retains

17

exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the above-captioned matter, the Settlement Agreement,

18

and the parties for the purposes of supervising the implementation, effectuation, enforcement,

19

construction, administration and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 23, 2015

23
________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2