Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04456/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04456-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE L. CAMPANELLI,

Plaintiff,

v.

IMAGE FIRST HEALTHCARE 

LAUNDRY SPECIALISTS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04456-PJH 

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

AND DISMISSING ACTION

Re: Dkt. No. 129

Before the court is the parties’ joint request for court approval of an individual 

settlement between plaintiff Kyle Campanelli and defendants ImageFirst Healthcare 

Laundry Specialist, Inc. and ImageFirst of California, LLC. Having read the papers filed 

by the parties and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, 

and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the parties’ request, for the 

following reasons. 

ImageFIRST of California employed Campanelli as a delivery person from March 

2014 to March 2015. In general, Campanelli alleges that he worked over forty hours a 

week but was denied meal and rest periods and was never paid overtime compensation, 

in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) and the California Labor Code. 

Campanelli originally brought this action as a putative collective action under the 

FLSA and as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On December 21, 

2018, the court denied defendants’ motion to deny FLSA certification and granted their

motion to deny Rule 23 class certification. Dkt. 123. From that point, therefore, this 

action has proceeded as only a putative collective action under the FLSA. 

Case 4:15-cv-04456-PJH Document 132 Filed 04/30/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

On April 5, 2019, the parties filed the now pending joint request for approval of 

settlement. Dkt. 129. Subsequently, in response to a court order, the parties filed 

additional support for that request. Dkt. 131. 

A. The Fair Labor Standards Act 

An employee's claims under the FLSA are nonwaivable and may not be settled 

without supervision of either the Secretary of Labor or a district court. Yue Zhou v. 

Wang's Restaurant, No. 05–cv–0279 PVT, 2007 WL 2298046, *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 

2007) (citing Barrentine v. Ark.–Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981); Lynn's 

Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352–53 (11th. Cir. 1982)). “When 

employees bring a private action for back wages under the FLSA, and present to the 

district court a proposed settlement, the district court may enter a stipulated judgment 

after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1353.

Because “[t]he Ninth Circuit has not established the criteria that a district court must 

consider in determining whether an FLSA settlement warrants approval,” district courts in 

this Circuit widely follow the Eleventh Circuit’s Lynn’s Food Stores standard. Dunn v. 

Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am., 2016 WL 153266, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016). 

Under Lynn’s Food Stores, a district court may approve an FLSA settlement only if it 

reflects “a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” 

Otey v. CrowdFlower, Inc., 2015 WL 6091741, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2015) (quoting 

Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1355). 

After reviewing the settlement agreement, the factual representations made by the 

parties, the allegations in the complaint, and the legal issues presented by this case, the 

court finds that the settlement is fair and warrants approval under the standard articulated 

in Lynn’s Food Stores. 

B. Dismissal of Putative Collective Claims 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires courts to approve the proposed 

voluntary dismissal of Rule 23 class claims. The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 23(e) 

also applies to pre-certification classes. Diaz v. Tr. Territory of Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 

Case 4:15-cv-04456-PJH Document 132 Filed 04/30/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, “[c]ourts generally apply the same [Rule 23(e)]

standard to FLSA collective action settlements.” Kempen v. Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc., 

2017 WL 475095, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017); Gonzalez v. Fallanghina, LLC, No. 16-

CV-01832-MEJ, 2017 WL 1374582, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2017) (collecting cases); 

Luo v. Zynga Inc., 2014 WL 457742, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014). In Diaz, the Ninth 

Circuit enumerated three factors for courts to consider when determining whether 

dismissal of class claims will prejudice putative class members: “(1) class members' 

possible reliance on the filing of the action if they are likely to know of it either because of 

publicity or other circumstances, (2) lack of adequate time for class members to file other 

actions, because of a rapidly approaching statute of limitations, (3) any settlement or 

concession of class interests made by the class representative or counsel in order to 

further their own interests.” Diaz, 876 F.2d at 1408; Luo, 2014 WL 457742, at *3-4

(applying Diaz to dismissal of putative FLSA collective claims).

After considering the Diaz factors and other possible sources of prejudice, the 

court finds that dismissal of this action will not prejudice the putative FLSA collective. 

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the court hereby ORDERS as follows: 

(1) The parties’ settlement is APPROVED. 

(2) The parties’ motion to seal the settlement amount is GRANTED. 

(3) The action in its entirety is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. That dismissal, 

however, is without prejudice to non-present putative FLSA collective action 

members.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2019

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04456-PJH Document 132 Filed 04/30/19 Page 3 of 3