Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01955/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01955-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:0201fl FLSA: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

---

-1- 16cv1955-MMA (DHB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DARRELL ROBERTS, et al, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv1955-MMA (DHB)

ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE 

Plaintiffs Darrell Roberts, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendant 

City of Chula Vista (“Defendant”) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219. See Doc. No. 1 (hereinafter “Comp.”). On November 

2, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation and request for approval of the parties’ settlement 

agreement and dismissal of this action with prejudice. See Doc. No. 39. For the reasons 

set forth below, the Court DEFERS ruling on the parties’ request. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, who are or were employed by the City of Chula Vista as firefighters, 

filed this action on August 2, 2016, alleging that Defendant failed to correctly pay 

overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. See Comp. ¶¶ 5-6. Plaintiffs seek 

actual, consequential, liquidated and incidental damages, and any such other damages as 

may be allowed. See Comp. Further, Plaintiffs seek attorney’s fees and costs. See id. 

Case 3:16-cv-01955-MMA-DHB Document 43 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
 -2- 16cv1955-MMA (DHB)

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

On February 3, 2017, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, denying the 

material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. See Doc. No. 17. 

In July 2017, the parties represented to the Court that they had reached a settlement 

in principle. See Doc. No. 30 at 1. On November 2, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation 

and request for dismissal of this action with prejudice. See Doc. No. 39. The parties 

attached the settlement agreement to their stipulation and request for dismissal. See id.

The settlement agreement provides that Defendant will pay a total of 

$1,039.616.81 to settle the claims of the one hundred and twenty-four plaintiffs. See 

Doc. No. 39-1 at 3. Specifically, each plaintiff is entitled to receive a portion of damages 

for scheduled and unscheduled overtime, totaling $538,890.79, and liquidated damages, 

totaling $470,426.02. Id. Additionally, the law firm of Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone is to 

receive $29,700.00 for attorneys’ fees and $600.00 for costs. Id. at 4. 

 The settlement agreement further provides that Plaintiffs agree to dismiss with 

prejudice their claims against Defendant in this action, and to withdraw or dismiss any 

other complaint, claim, grievance, or charge against Defendant alleging FLSA violations 

that were asserted in this action. See id. Plaintiffs, however, “reserve the right to pursue 

any FLSA . . . claims that they might have for events occurring after the effective date of 

this Agreement.” Id. The release of claims is to become effective upon the Court’s

approval of the settlement agreement and dismissal of the action. See id. at 7. 

LEGAL STANDARD

“The FLSA was enacted to protect covered workers from substandard wages and 

oppressive working hours.” Selk v. Pioneers Mem’l Healthcare Dist., 159 F. Supp. 3d 

1164, 1171 (S.D. Cal. 2016). Specifically, “[t]he FLSA establishes federal minimumwage, maximum-hour, and overtime guarantees that cannot be modified by contract.” 

Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 69 (2013). “[C]laims for unpaid 

wages under the FLSA may only be waived or otherwise settled if settlement is 

supervised by the Secretary of Labor or approved by a district court.” Selk, 159 F. Supp. 

3d at 1172; see also Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th 

Case 3:16-cv-01955-MMA-DHB Document 43 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
 -3- 16cv1955-MMA (DHB)

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

Cir. 1982). 

“The Ninth Circuit has not established criteria for district courts to consider in 

determining whether a FLSA settlement should be approved.” Beidleman v. City of 

Modesto, 2017 WL 5257087, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2017). However, district courts in 

this circuit generally apply the standard adopted by the Eleventh Circuit in Lynne’s Food 

Stores. Id.; see also Slezak v. City of Palo Alto, 2017 WL 2688224, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. 

June 22, 2017); Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 1172; Ambrosino v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 

2014 WL 1671489, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014). Thus, in reviewing a FLSA 

settlement, courts must determine whether the settlement represents a “fair and 

reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.” Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1355. “A 

bona fide dispute exists when there are legitimate questions about ‘the existence and 

extent of Defendant’s FLSA liability.’” Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 1172 (citing Ambrosino, 

2014 WL 1671489, at *1). A court will not approve a settlement of an action where there 

is no question that the FLSA entitles the plaintiffs to the compensation they seek, because 

it would shield employers from the full cost of complying with the statute. See id. 

 Once a court determines that a bona fide dispute exists, “it must then determine 

whether the settlement is fair and reasonable.” Id. Courts should consider the following 

factors in evaluating whether a settlement is fair and reasonable under the FLSA: (1) the 

plaintiff’s range of possible recovery; (2) the stage of proceedings and the amount of 

discovery completed; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks faced by the parties; (4) 

the scope of any release provision in the settlement agreement; (5) the experience and 

views of counsel and the opinion of participating plaintiffs; and (6) the possibility of 

fraud or collusion. Id. at 1173. A “district court must ultimately be satisfied that the 

settlement’s overall effect is to vindicate, rather than frustrate, the purposes of the 

FLSA.” Id. “If the settlement reflects a reasonable compromise over issues that are 

actually in dispute, the Court may approve the settlement ‘in order to promote the policy 

of encouraging settlement of litigation.’” Ambrosino, 2014 WL 1671489, at *1 (citing 

Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354). 

Case 3:16-cv-01955-MMA-DHB Document 43 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
 -4- 16cv1955-MMA (DHB)

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

DISCUSSION

Here, the parties have submitted a relatively short stipulation, a copy of the 

settlement agreement, and a proposed order. See Doc. Nos. 39, 39-1. In the stipulation, 

the parties summarily assert “the settlement amounts as calculated . . . are fair and 

consistent and well within the range of the maximum results Plaintiffs could expect to 

obtain at trial if they prevailed.” Doc. No. 39 at 4. Additionally, the parties contend “the 

amount to be paid to Plaintiffs’ counsel accurately and fairly reflects the amount of 

attorney’s fees and costs expended by Plaintiffs’ counsel in pursuing Plaintiffs’ claims to 

date.” Id. The parties, however, fail to provide any factual representations or analysis as 

to why this settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute, or that the 

amount to be paid to counsel is accurate in light of the time and money expended in this 

case. As such, the Court is unable to apply the legal standard and six factors outlined 

above to the facts of this case. 

Accordingly, the parties are directed to supplement their stipulation for approval 

and dismissal by way of declaration(s), briefing, or both, addressing the legal standard 

and factors set forth above. Upon receipt of the filings, the Court will issue an order 

addressing the proposed settlement and dismissal. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DEFERS ruling on the parties’ request for 

approval of settlement and dismissal of the action with prejudice. The parties must 

submit the supplemental filings on or before December 15, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 29, 2017

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-01955-MMA-DHB Document 43 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4