REGAL v. SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP
OPINION AND ORDER granting 23 the Joint Motion for approval of the settlement; case dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 2/24/15. (gh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 2:14-cv-04524 (WJM)
OPINION & ORDER
TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGFIELD,
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on an unopposed joint motion to approve
a settlement agreement. In June 2014, Plaintiff Patti Regal filed this action against
Defendant Township of Springfield. The Complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (“FLSA”) and the New Jersey Wage and
Hours Laws (“NJWHL”). Specifically, Regal – who was employed by Defendant as an
officer worker – alleges that Defendant violated the FLSA and the NJWHL by failing to
pay her overtime. Defendant maintains that Regal was properly compensated for all time
worked. On October 17, 2014, upon motion by Defendant, the Court dismissed the
After engaging in some written discovery, the parties reached a settlement
agreement (the “Agreement”). The Agreement provides that Regal will receive a total
amount of $5,550.00, including $2,650.00 in attorney’s fees. In return, Regal has agreed
to release any and all claims arising from her employment with Defendant. (Mt. to
Approve, Ex. A at § 5.)
The parties have now filed a joint motion to approve the Agreement. Many courts
have held that in an FLSA case, parties to a settlement agreement must submit their
agreement to the court for approval. See, e.g., Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. U.S.
Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 1982); Bettger v. Crossmark, Inc., No.
1:13-cv-2030, 2015 WL 279754, *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 22, 2015); Morales v. PepsiCo., Inc., No.
11-cv-6275, 2012 WL 870752, *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2012). A court should approve a
settlement agreement if it is fair and resolves a bona fide dispute. See, e.g, Bredbenner v.
Liberty Travel, Inc., No. 09-905, 2011 WL 1344745, *18 (D.N.J. Apr. 8, 2011). When
analyzing a settlement agreement, a court must be mindful of the strong public policy in
favor of settlements. See, e.g., Farris v. JC Penney Co., Inc., 176 F.3d 706, 711 (3d Cir.
1999) (citations omitted).
The Court has reviewed the terms of the Agreement and concludes that the
Agreement presents a fair resolution of a bona fide dispute. This case presents a bona fide
dispute because the parties disagree on the number of hours worked by Regal. Moreover,
this factual dispute creates uncertainties for both parties, which has led them to seek a
middle ground by entering into a settlement agreement. Mindful of these considerations,
the Court has reviewed the terms of the Agreement concludes that it is fair and reasonable.
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown;
IT IS on this 24th day of February 2015, hereby,
ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to approve the Agreement is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that this case is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
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?