Santiago v. Shiva's Indian Restaurant et al

Filing 20

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE. Re: ECF 17 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 2/14/2017. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JUAN CARLOS SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 Case No. 16-cv-03757 NC ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE v. SHIVA’S INDIAN RESTAURANT, SHYAM CHOUDHARY, HARSH BAHL, and OM BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., Re: ECF 17 Defendants. 16 Presented to the Court is a joint motion for approval of the settlement of plaintiffs’ 17 claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). During the time period covered by the 18 settlement, plaintiff Santiago asserts he worked as a “busser” at Shiva’s Indian Restaurant 19 in downtown Mountain View, California. Plaintiff asserts that he was not properly paid 20 his overtime premiums when he worked more than 40 hours per week. 21 After the case was referred for mediation, the parties resolved plaintiff’s claims by 22 way of a settlement agreement. ECF 18. All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a 23 magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF 7, 10. Plaintiff Santiago is bound by the 24 settlement. He has agreed to dismiss and release his claims, subject to Court approval. 25 Defendants have agreed to pay a total of $13,000.00. Of this total amount, plaintiff’s 26 counsel will retain $4,290.00 in fees and costs; Santiago will receive $8,710.00. ECF 17. 27 Because one of plaintiffs’ claims is under the FLSA, approval by either the 28 Case No. 16-cv-03757 NC 1 Secretary of Labor or the Court is required. When presented with a proposed settlement of 2 FLSA claims, the Court “must determine whether the settlement is a fair and reasonable 3 resolution of a bona fide dispute.” See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 4 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982); Yue Zhou v. Wang’s Restaurant, Case No. 05-cv-0279 PVT, 5 2007 WL 2298046, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2007). 6 Here, the Court has reviewed the settlement. ECF 18. There were no objections 7 received. The Court finds that the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona 8 fide dispute. 9 Finally, the parties have requested that the Court dismiss the complaint with prejudice upon full payment of the settlement sum (expected by March 20, 2017). That 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 request is granted. Accordingly, the settlement is approved; the complaint is dismissed 12 with prejudice; the clerk is requested to terminate this case; and the Court retains 13 jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until April 7, 2017, or further Court order. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: February 14, 2017 18 _____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 16-cv-03757 NC 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?