Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01843/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01843-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

George M. Lopez; William Lee Plummer;

Ralph C. Galindo; and a class of others

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Arizona Public Service Company, an

Arizona corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1843-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Settlement

Agreement and Dismiss Lawsuit with Prejudice (Doc. # 36). The Court grants the parties’

motion.

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

the parties request this Court to enter an Order that specifically approves the parties’

Settlement Agreement.

In Lynn’s, the Eleventh Circuit held:

There are only two ways in which back wage claims arising under the FLSA

can be settled or compromised by Employees. First, under section 216(c), the

Secretary of Labor is authorized to supervise payment to employees of unpaid

wages owed to them. An employee who accepts such a payment supervised

by the Secretary thereby waives his right to bring suit for both the unpaid

wages and for liquidated damages, provided the employer pays in full the back

wages.

Case 2:08-cv-01843-JAT Document 38 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

The only other route for compromise of FLSA claims is provided in the

context of suits brought directly by employees against their employer under

section 216(b) to recover back wages for FLSA violations. 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, 679 F.2d at 1352-53.

Normally, the Court does not rule on a private settlement negotiated between parties.

However, because Plaintiffs filed a FLSA action against Defendant, the parties must seek

approval of their stipulated settlement in order to ensure the enforceability of the Settlement

Agreement. Id. See also In re Sepracor Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litigation,

2009 WL 3253947, *2 (D. Ariz. 2009); Thornton v. Solutionone Cleaning Concepts, Inc.,

2007 WL 210586, *3 (E.D. Cal. 2007). 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 proposed Settlement Agreement and finds that it does in

fact reflect a fair and reasonable resolution of the issues. Defendant strongly contested

liability under the FLSA, claiming that Plaintiffs were paid for the time spent donning and

doffing, clearing security screens, and attending meetings. Further, even if the Plaintiffs

could have proven liability, they would have faced difficultly establishing that each Plaintiff

worked more than 40 hours per week. Finally, the proposed distribution to each Plaintiff is

fair and equitable because the distribution directly relates to each Plaintiff’s length of

employment with Defendant and the amount of hours each Plaintiff worked for APS.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement

and Dismiss Lawsuit with Prejudice (Doc. # 36) is granted. The Court finds that the

Settlement Agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over wages

owed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and therefore approves the settlement. Each

opt-in Plaintiff who is qualified to participate in the settlement under the Settlement

Case 2:08-cv-01843-JAT Document 38 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

Agreement and who files a Consent Form on or before February 26, 2010, shall be covered

by this Order approving the settlement.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Court will retain jurisdiction over the

parties to enforce the Settlement Agreement

DATED this 26th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01843-JAT Document 38 Filed 01/27/10 Page 3 of 3