Campbell v. Las Vegas Bistro, LLC dba Larry Flynt's Hustler Club

Filing 46

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 38 the joint motion to approve the settlement and dismiss the case with prejudice be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 10 defendant's motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/13/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BRANDI CAMPBELL,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:16-CV-1842 JCM (NJK)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
LAS VEGAS BISTRO, LLC,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court is the joint motion to approve settlement and dismiss the instant
case with prejudice. (ECF No. 38).

15

Because some of the allegations in this case arise out of the Fair Labor Standards Act

16

(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., this court is obligated to review the settlement. See Gamble

17

v. Boyd Gaming Corp., No. 2:13-CV-01009-JCM, 2015 WL 4874276, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug. 13,

18

2015) (citing Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352–53 (11th Cir. 1982));

19

see also (ECF No. 1-1). Indeed, a district court must assess whether the settlement “reflects a

20

reasonable compromise over issues that are actually in dispute.” Id. (internal quotation marks

21

omitted).

22

Here, the parties agree upon a governing range of recovery, as indicated by plaintiff’s wage

23

claim to the labor commissioner. See (ECF No. 38, 38-2). By agreeing to this settlement, both

24

sides would forego arguments addressing whether plaintiff should be characterized as an employee

25

or as an independent contractor. See (ECF No. 38).

26

Next, the parties represent that the possible recovery does not exceed the cost of litigation,

27

and there is a chance that, if this case proceeded on the merits, plaintiff may fail to recover from

28

defendant. See (id.).

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Further, the court is cognizant that this agreement is the product of an Early Neutral

2

Evaluation conducted before Magistrate Judge Leen. (Id.). Therefore, the parties’ assertion that

3

the agreement was “the result of arm’s-length bargaining” appears particularly credible. (Id. at 7).

4

Finally, the policy favoring the public resolution of FLSA claims is not well-served here

5

because publicity has already been generated for sufficiently similar employment controversies

6

and because the settlement covers a variety of claims outside of the FLSA. See (id.) (citing Terry

7

v. Sapphire, 336 P.3d 951 (Nev. 2014)). It also appears that the next step for possible resolution

8

of this case would have been “private arbitration between the parties.” (Id. at 9).

9

Accordingly,

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the joint motion to

11

approve the settlement and dismiss the case with prejudice (ECF No. 38) be, and the same hereby

12

is, GRANTED.

13
14
15
16
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) be, and the
same hereby is, DENIED as moot.
DATED April 13, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-