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)
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?