Estes et al v. McDonald's Restaurants of West Virginia, Inc.
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER upon hearing held 6/4/2012, approving the parties' settlement and directing counsel for plaintiff to file the fully executed settlement under seal with the Court within 10 days of entry of this Order; directing that this civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and retired from the docket of the Court, subject to reopening on motion of any party, and for good cause shown, within 90 days. The parties need not submit any additional proposed dismissal or other final order unless it is required by law or is necessary under the terms of any agreement resolving this civil action. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 6/8/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
RICHARD ESTES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00122
MCDONALD’S RESTAURANTS OF
WEST VIRGINIA INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On February 24, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant McDonald’s
Restaurants of West Virginia, Inc. alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §
201 et seq. (“FLSA”). By Order dated December 20, 2011, the Court, having been advised that this
controversy had been compromised and settled, directed that the case be dismissed and retired from
the Court’s docket. (Docket 16.) The Court’s Order permitted either party to move to re-open the
case within ninety days upon a showing of good cause. On March 19, 2012, the parties filed their
Joint Motion to Reopen the Record for the limited purpose of permitting the Court to review and
approve the parties’ settlement agreement (Docket 17). In connection with their joint motion, the
parties submitted correspondence to the Court’s chambers and a copy of the proposed confidential
settlement agreement for the Court’s in camera inspection. The parties’ correspondence states that
they have submitted the settlement agreement “in camera to avoid public disclosure.”
The settlement of an employee’s FLSA action must be approved by a federal court through
a stipulated judgment after the court examines the settlement for fairness. Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc.
v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir.1982). The public’s common law right of access
to certain judicial records and documents is implicated where, as here, the parties in an FLSA case
seek to keep the terms of their settlement agreements confidential. Boone v. City of Suffolk, Va., 679
F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982). Fourth Circuit precedent requires a district court to first give the
public both notice and a reasonable opportunity to challenge any decision to keep such an agreement
confidential. Baker v. Dolgencorp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 940, 942 (E.D. Va. 2011) (citing In re
Knight Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231, 234-35 (4th Cir. 1984) (holding that the district court erred in
closing the courtroom and sealing courtroom documents in a criminal case without first giving the
public notice and an opportunity to be heard); Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp. 855 F.2d 178,
181 (4th Cir. 1988) (extending Knight to civil cases); and Boone, 79 F. Supp. 2d at 609.
On May 21, 2012, the Court, by written order that was filed on the public docket of this case,
scheduled a public hearing on this matter for June 4, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. Notice of the hearing was
also provided on the Court’s calendar, which is posted on the Court’s website. The purpose of
scheduling the hearing was to afford the public an opportunity to be heard on the proposed
agreement.
On June 4, 2012, counsel for the parties appeared for the public hearing. No member of the
public or press attended the hearing. The Court waited until 10:15 a.m. to afford extra time for
persons to appear, but none did.
2
The Court has examined the terms of the proposed settlement and finds them reasonable and
fair. Further, the parties have stated that the confidentiality provision of the agreement is “integral”
to their agreement. Accordingly, because the terms of the settlement agreement are fair and
reasonable, and because the Court has provided notice to the public and has heard no objection by
anyone to the parties’ proposed settlement or to having the settlement agreement filed under seal,
the Court, for good cause shown under the facts of this particular case, APPROVES the parties’
settlement and DIRECTS counsel for Plaintiff to file the fully executed settlement under seal with
the Court within ten days of entry of this Order.
It is ORDERED that this civil action be, and the same is hereby, DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE and retired from the docket of the Court, subject to reopening on motion of any party,
and for good cause shown, within ninety days.
The parties need not submit any additional proposed dismissal or other final order unless it
is required by law or is necessary under the terms of any agreement resolving this civil action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:
3
June 8, 2012
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?