Lucas v. The Scotts Company of Ohio, LLC et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of the Settlement 19 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Petition and this Action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/3/17. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JEFF LUCAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE SCOTTS COMPANY OF OHIO, LLC,
and EG SYSTEMS, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:17-cv-00813

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Settlement [19]. The Court has
reviewed the Motion and Memorandum in Support, and considered the record in this matter.
1.

On January 24, 2017, Plaintiff Jeff Lucas (“Plaintiff”) filed suit in the Circuit

Court of St. Louis County against Defendants The Scotts Company, LLC and E.G. Systems, Inc.
d/b/a Scotts Lawn Service (the “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), and the Missouri
Minimum Wage Law, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.500 et seq. (“MMWL”) by failing to properly pay
Plaintiff overtime compensation (the “Action”).
2.

On March 2, 2017, the Defendants removed the Action to the United States

District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.
3.

On September 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Approval of Settlement and a

Memorandum in Support. The Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion.
4.

The Settlement provides for a payment by Defendants to Plaintiff in the amount

of Fifteen Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($15,000.00) in full resolution of Plaintiff’s claims
1

in this matter (the “Settlement”). The Settlement also provides for an attorneys’ fee award of
one-third of the settlement amount to the Plaintiff, which the Court finds to be reasonable.
5.

The Court finds that the Settlement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate

compromise of a bona fide dispute under both the MMWL and the FLSA.
6.

The Settlement is the product of contested litigation, as the parties disputed

numerous aspects of this case. The Settlement obviates the time and expense of a jury trial.
7.

The Settlement resulted from non-collusive arm’s-length negotiations and takes

into account the risks of continuing this action.
8.

The Court hereby approves the Settlement.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of the Settlement
[19] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Petition and this Action are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.

Dated this 3rd day of October, 2017.

__________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2