Barquero v. Autozoners, LLC

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice is GRANTED. [Doc. 19] An appropriate order of dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order Approving Settlement.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 3/17/2016. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT BARQUERO,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUTOZONERS, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-749 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Plaintiff Robert Barquero and defendant Autozoners, LLC have filed a joint motion
requesting that the Court approve their settlement agreement. This case was brought under § 216(b)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (“FLSA”), and, as a result, any
settlement must be approved by the Court.1 Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d
1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982). In support of the motion, the parties assert that (1) this matter involves
a bona fide dispute with legal and factual disputes, and (2) arm’s-length negotiation resulted in a
settlement of all claims on terms that are fair, reasonable and adequate. The parties also submitted
a settlement agreement and mutual release. The Court ordered plaintiff’s counsel to submit
additional information concerning the reasonableness of the proposed attorney’s fees to be paid to
him, and he has done so. Because the Court finds that the settlement is fair and equitable to both
parties, it will approve the proposed settlement.
A district court may only approve a settlement agreement in a case brought under § 216(b)
of the FLSA after it determines that the litigation involves a bona fide dispute and that the proposed

1

Plaintiff also brought a state law claim for unjust enrichment.

settlement is fair and equitable to all parties. Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1353; Fry v. Accent
Marketing Servs., L.L.C., 2014 WL 294421, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 27, 2014); Moore v. Ackerman
Investment Co., 2009 WL 2848858, at *2 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 1, 2009).
This settlement is the product of contested litigation. The plaintiff in this action has brought
suit against his former employer to recover allegedly unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA. A
case management order was issued in August 2015 and the matter was referred to alternative dispute
resolution in December 2015. The parties notified the Court of settlement on March 8, 2016.
To determine whether the settlement is fair and reasonable under the FLSA, courts routinely
consider the same fairness factors typically applied to a Rule 23 class action. Fry, 2014 WL 294421,
at *1; Moore, 2009 WL 2848858, at *2. Among the factors a court may consider are the stage of
the litigation, the amount of discovery exchanged, the experience of counsel, and the reasonableness
of the settlement amount based on the probability of plaintiff’s success with respect to any potential
recovery. Fry, 2014 WL 294421, at *1. Here, plaintiff and defendant assert that they agreed to the
settlement after recognizing the existence of significant disputed legal and factual issues regarding
plaintiff’s claims that make the outcome of litigation uncertain. The parties represent to the Court
that the settlement agreement is the product of arm’s-length negotiations and constitutes a fair,
reasonable and adequate settlement of plaintiff’s claims based on the merits of his case, weighed
against the terms of the settlement, and the complexity, expense and uncertain outcome of continued
litigation. Both parties were represented by competent counsel during settlement negotiations and
throughout the pendency of this case. The parties have developed their cases enough to know the
potential recovery and the relative risks of proceeding to trial with their claims. The Court finds no
basis to doubt that the settlement is fair and reasonable to both parties.

2

The requested attorney’s fees in this case are also reasonable. It is well established that
“[t]he starting point in determining attorney fees is the lodestar, which is calculated by multiplying
the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rat[e].” Fish v. St. Cloud State
Univ., 295 F.3d 849, 851 (8th Cir. 2002). The amount of attorney’s fees requested by plaintiff’s
counsel is not opposed by defendants, is based on a reasonable hourly rate, and is reasonable based
on the amount of time and effort expended on this case.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and
Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice is GRANTED. [Doc. 19]
An appropriate order of dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order Approving
Settlement.

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 17th day of March, 2016.

3