Franklin et al v. Pilot Thomas Logistics, LLC
ORDER granting 62 Amended Joint Motion to Restrict Access to 54 Settlement Agreement. The Clerk shall UNRESTRICT Plaintiffs' Petition for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The 54 Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims shall REMAIN restricted at a Level 1 restriction. ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 1/9/2018. (cthom, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02043-RM-MJW
FREDRICK A. NICOLOSI,
JOEL KLASSEN, and
PILOT THOMAS LOGISTICS, LLC,
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Nehemiah McGee, Anthony Urnberg,
Foudou Adam,1 Fredrick A. Nicolosi, Malachi McGee, Jonah Kalili, Raul Yanez-Sandoval, and
Solomon Debretsion (the “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Pilot Thomas Logistics, LLC (collectively,
the “Settling Parties”) “Amended Joint Motion to Restrict Access to Settlement Agreement [ECF
NO. 54],” (“Amended Motion”) (ECF No. 62). The Amended Motion was filed in response to
the Court’s October 18, 2017, Order (“Order”) (ECF No. 58)2 denying without prejudice the
Settling Parties’ previous request for a Level 1 restriction of their Settlement Agreement (ECF
No. 54) and of Plaintiffs’ Petition for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Petition”) (ECF
The parties’ papers refer to Mr. Adam sometimes as “Adam Foudou.”
The Court notes that the operative complaint was referenced in the Order as being found at ECF No. 31, when it is
located at ECF No. 46. (Order, ECF No. 58, page 1.)
Upon consideration of the Amended Motion, the court record, and the applicable rules
and case law, the Court finds the Amended Motion should be granted.
Specifically, in the Order, the Court raised concerns which the parties have now
satisfactorily addressed. First, as to the Petition, the parties no longer seek any restriction as to
As such, it will be unrestricted.
Next, as to the Settlement Agreement, the
parties have jointly agreed to allow such agreement to be filed for public access, redacted only of
the settlement amounts for the settling Plaintiffs.
(ECF No. 61-1.)
On this record, the Court
finds the parties’ representations are sufficient to allow the requested redaction, and that such
redaction will not undermine the purpose of the FLSA. See Cooper v. OFS 2 Deal 2, LLC,
15-cv-01291-RM-NYW, 2016 WL 1071002, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 17, 2016) (approving redacted
agreement). Accordingly, it is ORDERED
(1) That the “Amended Joint Motion to Restrict Access to Settlement Agreement [ECF
No. 54]” (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED;
(2) That the Clerk shall UNRESTRICT Plaintiffs’ Petition for Approval of Attorneys’
Fees and Costs (ECF No. 55); and
(3) That the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (ECF No. 54) shall REMAIN
restricted at a Level 1 restriction.
DATED this 9th day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge
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?