Berger v Bell-Mark Technologies Corporation

Filing 21

ORDER APPROVING amended settlement agreement 20 & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/13/19. (ki)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JEFFREY BERGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELL-MARK TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1836 (Chief Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 13th day of May, 2019, upon consideration of the court’s memorandum and order (Docs. 18, 19) denying in part the parties’ joint motion for approval of settlement on the basis that the settlement agreement’s release provision was too broad in scope, thereby impermissibly frustrating implementation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., (see Doc. 18 at 10-12), and further upon consideration of the parties’ notice (Doc. 20) requesting approval of an amended settlement by and between plaintiff Jeffrey Berger (“Berger”) and defendant Bell-Mark Technologies Corporation (“BellMark”), and it appearing that the amended settlement agreement’s release provision is limited in scope to claims arising out of the facts alleged in the instant litigation and which fall within the ambit of the FLSA and appropriate state law counterparts, (see Doc. 20 at 5 ¶ 7), and the court concluding that the amended settlement agreement now furthers implementation of the FLSA and its objectives in the workplace, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The amended settlement agreement (Doc. 20) by and between Berger and Bell-Mark is APPROVED. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. /S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

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?