Doug Slezak v. City of Palo Alto

Filing 50

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh Denying Without Prejudice 43 Motion for Settlement. (lhklc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

DOUG SLEZAK,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 16-CV-03224-LHK
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT OF ACTION UNDER
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

v.
CITY OF PALO ALTO,
Defendant.

17
18

On February 10, 2017, the parties filed an unsigned settlement agreement and a Motion to

19

Approve Settlement of Action under Fair Labor Standards Act. ECF No. 43. In the parties’

20

motion, the parties represented that the Palo Alto City Council approved the settlement of the

21

instant case on January 9, 2017. Id. at 3.

22

However, on March 21, 2017, the parties filed a joint case management statement, which

23

states that the parties are “currently in the process of obtaining approval and signatures” on the

24

unsigned settlement agreement filed with the Court on February 10, 2017. ECF No. 46. The

25

parties represented that a fully executed settlement agreement with the correct settlement amounts

26

would be filed with the Court by March 30, 2017. The parties did not file a fully executed

27
28

1
Case No. 16-CV-03224-LHK
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT OF ACTION UNDER
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

1

agreement on March 30, 2017 or thereafter.

2

On April 6, 2017, the parties filed an “Updated Joint Status Report for Case Management

3

Conference Regarding Execution of Proposed Settlement Agreement.” ECF No. 49. The parties

4

indicate that they have “obtained approval of the settlement from named plaintiff Doug Slezak and

5

nearly all of the eight City employees who have already opted in.” Id. The parties also “anticipate

6

submitting to the Court the exact allocation of the settlement amount among potential opt-in

7

plaintiffs before the fairness hearing.” Id. As of today, Monday April 10, 2017, the parties have

8

not filed a fully executed settlement agreement or the exact allocation of the settlement amount.

9

The hearing, which had been set when Plaintiffs filed their motion on February 10, 2017, is

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Thursday, April 13, 2017.
Additionally, the parties’ Motion to Approve Settlement provides no means of determining

12

how the payments for each opt-in plaintiff is to be calculated and how that amount relates to the

13

eventual payout. See ECF No. 43-2 at 18 (page titled “Formula” with no formula provided for

14

calculating the amount due to each opt-in plaintiff). Moreover, with respect to Plaintiffs’ request

15

for attorney’s fees and costs, Plaintiffs fail to provide (1) an itemization of costs, (2) an itemization

16

of the work and hours performed by each individual working on the case, and (3) biographies of

17

the individuals who worked on the case. The Court cannot determine that the amount paid to

18

Plaintiffs’ counsel or the opt-in plaintiffs will be a “fair and reasonable settlement of a bona fide

19

dispute” without such information. Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F. 2d 1350,

20

1352–53 (11th Cir. 1982).

21

Finally, the parties never identify or provide any analysis of the “bona fide dispute” at

22

issue in the instant suit. The Court must make a finding that a bona fide dispute exists under the

23

Lynn’s Food Stores standard, or the parties must provide a reason why that standard need not be

24

met in the instant suit. Id.; see ECF No. 43 at 4–7 (discussing in the Motion to Approve

25

Settlement the requirement that a bona fide dispute exist without providing any facts or analysis

26

for why that requirement is met in the instant suit).

27
28

2
Case No. 16-CV-03224-LHK
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT OF ACTION UNDER
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

1

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Settlement of Action under Fair Labor

2

Standards Act is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs shall not file another motion until the

3

motion is complete and sets forth the necessary elements and facts for a collective action

4

settlement. To the extent possible, the Court will attempt to expedite the hearing date on any

5

future motion.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: April 10, 2017
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 16-CV-03224-LHK
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT OF ACTION UNDER
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT