Bahr v. Wolf Oil and Gas, LLC et al

Filing 60

OPINION AND ORDER : Granting 53 parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement, as set forth in the order. Dismissal Paper due by 10/30/2015. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/6/2015.(emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03071-MJW
JACK BAHR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
WOLF OIL AND GAS, LLC,
JEFFERY WOLF, and
JESSE WOLF,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael J. Watanabe
United States Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement. (Docket
No. 53.) The Court has reviewed the motion and the proposed settlement agreement
(Docket Nos. 53 & 54), taken judicial notice of the Court’s entire file in this case, and
considered the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, statutes, and case law.
Now being fully informed, the Court GRANTS the motion for the following reasons and
ORDERS the parties to submit dismissal papers under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) no later
than October 30, 2015.
This is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 201 et seq. The matter has been conditionally certified under Hoffmann-La Roche
Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (see Docket No. 38), and four opt-in plaintiffs have
joined the case (Docket Nos. 42, 43, & 44). At the motion and fairness hearing on this
matter, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that all five plaintiffs (the original named plaintiff
and all four opt-in plaintiffs) have signed the proposed settlement agreement. (Docket
No. 59.)
The provisions of the FLSA are not subject to private negotiation between
employers and employees. Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350,
1352 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706-07
(1945)). Accordingly, when employees file suit against an employer to recover wages
under the FLSA, the parties must present any proposed settlement to the district court
for review and a determination that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Id. at 1353.
The Court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness;
this scrutiny effectuates the purpose of the statute, which is to “protect certain groups of

the population from substandard wages and excessive hours . . . due to the unequal
bargaining power as between employer and employee.” Baker v. Vail Resorts Mgmt.
Co., No. 13-cv-01649-PAB-CBS, 2014 WL 700096, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 24, 2014)
(quoting Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706 (1945)). Accordingly, to
approve the settlement agreement, the Court must find that (1) the litigation involves a
bona fide dispute, (2) the proposed settlement is fair and equitable to all parties
concerned, and (3) the proposed settlement contains a reasonable award of attorney
fees. See McCaffrey v. Mortg. Sources, Corp., 2011 WL 32436, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 5,
2011); Lynn's Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354.
The Court finds here that a bona fide dispute exists between the parties, as to
the proper classification of plaintiffs (as employees or as independent contractors) and
as to the willfulness of defendants’ conduct. (See Docket Nos. 35, ¶¶ 28-33, 38-40; 39,
¶¶ 28-33, 38-40; 53, pp.3-4.) The Court further finds that the settlement is fair and
equitable to all parties concerned, and includes a reasonable award of attorneys fees,
because:
(1) the named plaintiff and the defendants affirmed as much at the motion and
fairness hearing (Docket No. 59);
(2) the opt-in plaintiffs are limited in number and have all signed the settlement
agreement, and no opt-in plaintiff appeared at the hearing despite having been
provided notice (Docket Nos. 58 & 59);
(3) the $40,000 paid in settlement appears fair and equitable for a dispute of this
nature; and
(4) plaintiff’s counsel’s represented that all plaintiffs will receive their full back-pay
owed under the statute (id.).
To determine whether a proposed settlement under Section 216(b) of the FLSA
is fair and equitable to all parties, courts have regularly applied the same fairness
factors as those applied in determining the fairness and equity of a proposed class
action settlement under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(e). In making such a determination, the
Tenth Circuit considers (1) whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly
negotiated, (2) whether serious questions of law and fact exist which place the ultimate
outcome of the litigation in doubt, (3) whether the value of an immediate recovery
outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation,
and (4) the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Rutter &
Wilbanks Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 314 F.3d 1180, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002). These factors
are satisfied here.
Dated this 6th day of October, 2015.
/s/ Michael J. Watanabe
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
United States Magistrate Judge