Acosta v. Healthcare Services Group, Inc.

Filing 86

ORDER APPROVING SECTION 216(b) SETTLEMENT: The parties 81 Amended Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Dismissal of Prejudice is GRANTED. All claims of the named plaintiff and the 21 opt-in plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standa rds Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. No costs are ASSESED against defendant. This Order IS STAYED pending approval of similar motions to approve the settlements reached in Cox v. Healthcare Services Group In c (N.D. Ohio Case No. 3:13-cv-00293-JZ) and Bowman v. Healthcare Services Group Inc, (N.D. Ohio Case No. 3:13-cv-1924-JZ). Within eleven (11) days of the approval of the last such motion in the parallel cases, the parties SHALL FILE a joint status report apprising the court of the resolution of this matter so that the case may be closed and judgment may be entered. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 12/12/2014. (alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03429-REB-CBS
MARIE ACOSTA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER APPROVING SECTION 216(b) SETTLEMENT
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the parties’ Amended Joint Motion for Approval of
Settlement Agreement and Dismissal of Prejudice [#81],1 filed November 7, 2014.
Having considered the motion, its concomitant supporting materials, and the record, I
conclude that the settlement terms negotiated by the parties and described in their
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release Pursuant to
Section 216(b) of the FLSA (the “Settlement Agreement”) (attached as Exhibit A to the
motion) are a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute between the named
plaintiff and defendant Healthcare Services, Group Inc. (“HSCG”) and that the attorney
fees requested therein are reasonable. Thus, I will grant the motion and approve the

1

“[#81]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing and system (CM/ECF). I use
this convention throughout this order.

parties’ settlement of the individual FLSA claims made in this lawsuit.2
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the parties’ Amended Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement
Agreement and Dismissal of Prejudice [#81], filed November 7, 2014, is GRANTED;
2. That the settlement of the individual claims of named plaintiff, Marie Acosta,
and the 21 opt-in plaintiffs is APPROVED;
3. That all claims of the named plaintiff and the 21 opt-in plaintiffs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
4. That no costs are ASSESSED against defendant;
5. That execution of this Order IS STAYED pending approval of similar motions
to approve the settlements reached in Cox v. Healthcare Services Group, Inc. (N.D.
Ohio Case No. 3:13-cv-00293-JZ) and Bowman v. Healthcare Services Group, Inc.,
(N.D. Ohio Case No. 3:13-cv-1924-JZ);
6. That following approval of the motions in Cox and Bowman, the parties ARE
DIRECTED to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and
7. That within eleven (11) days of the approval of the last such motion in the
parallel cases, the parties SHALL FILE a joint status report apprising the court of the
resolution of this matter so that the case may be closed and judgment may be entered;
provided conversely, if approval is not granted in one or both of the parallel cases, the
parties SHALL FILE within eleven (11) days of the denial of such relief a joint status
2

Understanding that the settlement of this case is dependent on the approval of the Joint Motions
to Approve §216(b) Action Settlement in Cox v. Healthcare Services Group, Inc. (N.D. Ohio Case No.
3:13-cv-00293-JZ) and Bowman v. Healthcare Services Group, Inc., (N.D. Ohio Case No.
3:13-cv-1924-JZ), this Order will be stayed until those motions are granted.

2

report apprising the court of that fact and suggesting what further action should be taken
in light of such circumstances.
Dated December 12, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3