Lee et al v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada

Filing 112

ORDER granting 111 Joint Motion to Dismiss., dismissing with prejudice 25 amended complaint. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/19/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

MEDERICK LEE, et al.,

Case No. 2:14-CV-328 JCM (CWH)

8
9
10
11
12

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER OF
SOUTHERN NEVADA,
Defendant(s).

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Presently before the court is a joint motion to approve settlement and dismiss this action in
its entirety with prejudice. (ECF No. 111). The motion is approved and the case dismissed.
This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq) lawsuit by four individual
plaintiffs against the University Medical Center of Southern Nevada (UMC). (See ECF No. 111
at 2). In general, plaintiffs allege that they were not paid legally mandatory overtime when they
worked through their meal breaks. Id.
A settlement agreement for FLSA, to be fully enforceable, should be approved by either a
district court or the Secretary of Labor. Gamble v. Boyd Gaming Corp., No. 2:13-cv-01009, 2015
WL 4874276, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug. 13, 2015) (citing Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S., 679 F>2d
1350, 1352–53 (11th Cir. 1982). A court may approve a settlement that represents a “reasonable
compromise” over issues that are “actually in dispute.” Id.
The court looks to the totality of circumstances to determine whether the settlement is
reasonable, and also considers the following five factors: (1) the plaintiffs’ range of possible
recovery; (2) the extent to which the settlement will enable the parties to avoid anticipated burdens
and expenses in establishing their respective claims and defenses; (3) the seriousness of the

1

litigation risks faced by the parties; (4) whether the settlement agreement is the product of arm’s-

2

length bargaining between experienced counsel; and (5) the possibility of fraud or collusion.

3

Wolinskky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

4

Here, the parties agree that the range of the plaintiffs’ total, aggregate possible recovery is

5

between $0 and $32,360.46 in overtime wages based on the plaintiffs’ rates of pay and estimated,

6

alleged underpayments. The parties have agreed to dismiss the claims with prejudice in exchange

7

for a lump-sum payment from UMC of $60,000. The parties agree that this settlement will allow

8

them to avoid the burdens and expenses of litigation. In fact, they agree that “the cost of litigating

9

this matter to conclusion will easily exceed Plaintiffs’ potential recovery.” (ECF No. 111 at 6).

10

They agree that there are “serious and involved questions of law and fact in dispute, and both

11

parties recognize the substantial risks and difficulties in successfully representing their respective

12

positions to the court.” Id. Further, this appears to be a good-faith, arms-length settlement, as the

13

parties have engaged in multiple efforts at mediation and negotiation over the course of several

14

months by their attorneys. Finally, this court sees no possibility of fraud or collusion. Therefore,

15

the settlement agreement is approved.

16

Accordingly,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion to approve settlement and to dismiss

18
19
20

lawsuit with prejudice (ECF No. 111) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all of plaintiffs’ claims and the amended complaint (ECF
No. 25) are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

21

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

22

DATED September 19, 2017.

23
24

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-