Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_15-cv-01950/USCOURTS-alnd-2_15-cv-01950-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

COREY SMITHERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHOW LAO LIEW, LLC d/b/a HOKKAIDO 

JAPANESE STEAK AND SUSHI BAR,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:15-cv-01950-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is a Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), case in which 

Plaintiff Corey Smitherman (“Smitherman” or “Plaintiff”) seeks payment from his employer 

Defendant Chow Lao Liew, LLC d/b/a Hokkaido Japanese Steak and Sushi Bar (“Defendant”) 

for unpaid wages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§206, 207, and 216(b). The parties jointly move for 

approval of their settlement. (Doc. 15). For the reasons stated below, the parties’ motion, (doc.

15), is GRANTED, and the settlement is APPROVED.

I. Facts

A. Background 

Plaintiff filed this FLSA action on October 30, 2015. (Doc. 1). The crux of Plaintiff’s 

claim is that Defendant required him to participate in a mandatory tip-sharing scheme that

included non-tipped employees. He further claims he was required to spend a substantial amount 

of time on non-tip producing activities. According to Plaintiff, this resulted in Defendant

misapplying the tip credit and misappropriating his tip earnings. Defendant has denied all 

allegations, on both a factual and legal basis. The parties dispute the existence and amount, if 

any, of any uncompensated and/or undercompensated work.

FILED

 2016 Mar-14 PM 01:25

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:15-cv-01950-JHE Document 16 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 5
The parties have represented that counsel has exchanged documents and personal data in 

connection with the evaluation and negotiation of this settlement. Plaintiff’s counsel has 

performed an independent analysis of time and payroll records and compared those with 

Plaintiff’s claims and allegations. After an independent analysis of the disputed facts and the 

law, the parties negotiated and determined the settlement amounts to be paid to Plaintiff as set 

forth below. 

The parties have further represented that Defendant also provided Plaintiff’s counsel with 

labor reports for Plaintiff’s entire tenure. These documents showed the following relevant 

information: (1) date, (2) job, (3) time in, (4) time out, (5) regulate rate of pay, (6) regular hours. 

Plaintiff’s counsel analyzed this data by having staff enter the data into an excel sheet to perform 

independent calculations for backpay based on total server hours. Based on this independent 

analysis, Plaintiff’s counsel calculated Plaintiff worked one thousand four hundred twenty four 

(point) sixty five hours (1,424.65 hours) as a server. For those hours, Defendant paid Plaintiff 

only $2.50 per hour as Defendants claimed $4.75 per hour. Accordingly, Plaintiff completed the 

following calculation: 1,424.65 X $4.75 per hour = $6,767.09 in backpay. Next, Plaintiff 

calculated an equal amount of liquidated damages to arrive at a gross settlement amount of 

thirteen thousand five hundred thirty four dollars and eighteen cents ($13,534.18). 

Additionally, Defendant agrees to pay six thousand four hundred sixty-five dollars and 

eighty two cents ($6,465.82) in attorneys’ fees and costs in light of the costs, work performed, 

hours spent, likely awardable hourly rates, as well as in an effort to expedite payment to Plaintiff 

and avoid costs and delay associated with continued litigation and a fee petition. This amount 

did not compromise or reduce Plaintiff’s FLSA claim and was determined separate and apart 

from Plaintiff’s settlement amount. 

Case 2:15-cv-01950-JHE Document 16 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 5
B. Terms of the Settlement

The terms of the parties’ settlement are as follows:

(a) The Defendant shall pay Plaintiff Corey Smitherman aggregate gross 

settlement proceeds of $13,534.18 by paying to him one $6,767.09 payment, 

denominated as wages, less the deduction of any taxes and any amounts required 

by law to be withheld from that check, and a second payment of $6,767.09 as 

liquidated damages from which there will be no amounts withheld.

(b) The Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel, for attorney’s fees and costs of 

this action, the collective total amount of $6,465.82;

(c) Neither the payments herein nor the Order Approving Settlement shall 

constitute or shall heretofore be represented as an admission, finding, conclusion 

or judgment of an FLSA violation on behalf of the Defendant or liability to the 

Plaintiff, or any other violation or liability whatsoever, including liability for 

liquidated damages, as a primary motivation for the Defendant’s agreement to a 

resolution of this matter was to avoid the uncertainty and additional expense of 

continued litigation.

II. Analysis

If an employee proves his employer violated the FLSA, the employer must remit to the 

employee all unpaid wages or compensation, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the 

unpaid wages, a reasonable attorney’s fee, and costs. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). “FLSA provisions are 

mandatory; the ‘provisions are not subject to negotiation or bargaining between employer and 

employee.’” Silva v. Miller, 307 Fed. Appx. 349, 351 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Lynn’s Food 

Stores, Inc. v. U.S. ex. Rel. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982)). “Any 

amount due that is not in dispute must be paid unequivocally; employers may not extract 

valuable concessions in return for payment that is indisputably owed under the FLSA.” Hogan v. 

Allstate Beverage Co., Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1282 (M.D. Ala. 2011).

Consequently, parties may settle an FLSA claim for unpaid wages only if there is a bona 

fide dispute relating to a material issue concerning the claim. In Lynn=s Food Stores, Inc. v. 

United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982), the court stated Athere is only one context in 

Case 2:15-cv-01950-JHE Document 16 Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 5
which compromises of FLSA back wage or liquidated damage claims may be allowed: a 

stipulated judgment entered by a court which has determined that a settlement proposed by an

employer and employees, in a suit brought by the employees under the FLSA, is a fair and 

reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.@ The primary focus of a 

court=s inquiry in determining whether to approve an FLSA settlement is to ensure that an 

employer does not take advantage of its employees in settling their claim for wages and other 

damages due under the statute. Collins v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 568 F. Supp. 714, 719 (E.D. 

La. 2008). 

Here, the parties have a legitimate dispute as to whether Defendant’s practices constituted 

the misapplication of the tip credit or misappropriation of Plaintiff’s tip earnings. The 

Defendant’s settlement offer (as set out in the terms above) is an appropriate amount for the 

disputed unpaid wages. The proposed settlement agreement also contained an agreed-upon 

attorney=s fees and costs amount. AWhere the attorney=s fee was agreed upon separately, without 

regard to the amount paid to the plaintiff, then >unless the settlement does not appear reasonable 

on its face or there is reason to believe that the plaintiff=s recovery was adversely affected by the 

amount of fees paid to his attorney, the Court will approve the settlement without separately 

considering the reasonableness of the fee to be paid to plaintiff=s counsel.=@ Davis v. The Filta 

Group, Inc., No. 6:10-cv-457-Orl-31KRS, 2010 WL 3958701, *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2010)

(quoting Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., No. 6:07-cv-1335-Orl-31GJK, 2009 WL 2371407, *5 

(M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2009)). Because the attorney=s fee was separately negotiated, Plaintiff=s 

recovery clearly was not affected by the amount of the attorneys’ fee. The court has considered 

the amount of the fee and finds it to be reasonable. 

Case 2:15-cv-01950-JHE Document 16 Filed 03/14/16 Page 4 of 5
III. Conclusion

The court finds Plaintiff’s claims represent a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions, 

namely FLSA coverage and the amount of his backpay, if any, and further finds the parties’ 

settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of these bona fide disputes.

Therefore, the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement is GRANTED, and the 

settlement is APPROVED. A separate order will be entered. 

DONE this 14th day of March 2016.

_______________________________

JOHN H. ENGLAND, III

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01950-JHE Document 16 Filed 03/14/16 Page 5 of 5