Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01161/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01161-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Robin L Poehler, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Debra Fenwick, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-01161-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

 The Court has considered the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Settlement of 

FLSA Action (Doc. 59) and Declaration of Jarrett J. Haskovec in Support of Motion to 

Approve Settlement of FLSA Action (Doc. 60). 

 In the context of suits brought directly by employees against their employer to 

recover back wages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et 

seq. (“FLSA”), the parties must present any proposed settlement to the district court, and 

the Court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness. 

See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982) 

(citing 29 U.S.C. § 216); see also Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945) 

(requiring the approval of the court or Department of Labor for FLSA settlements, and 

explaining the deferential standard for judicial review when the parties are represented by 

counsel). Because this case has been brought under the FLSA for the recovery of back 

wages, the parties seek judicial approval of the settlement prior to entering judgment in 

this action. The parties have attached the proposed settlement agreement to the joint 

Case 2:15-cv-01161-JWS-ESW Document 64 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

motion. (Doc. 59-1, Ex. A.) The Court may approve the settlement if it reflects a 

“reasonable compromise over issues.” Lynn’s, 679 F.2d at 1354. 

 The Court has reviewed the complaint, the parties’ joint motion, and the terms of 

the proposed settlement agreement, and finds that the settlement agreement reflects a fair 

and reasonable resolution of all issues. The parties have a bona fide dispute over both 

liability and damages regarding statutory coverage and wages owed under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act and Arizona Minimum Wage Act. The proposed settlement agreement 

does not appear to be the product of collusion between the parties, nor does it appear to 

be the result of fraud or overreaching on the part of Defendant. The Court concludes that 

the proposed settlement agreement should be approved as a fair and reasonable 

compromise of a bona fide dispute under the FLSA. 

 IT IS ORDERED granting the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement of FLSA 

Action (Doc. 59). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the District Court of Arizona hereby retains 

continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties, their attorneys, and this action as 

may be necessary or appropriate to implement and/or enforce the Settlement Agreement. 

 Dated this 19th day of May, 2016. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01161-JWS-ESW Document 64 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 2