Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02535/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02535-1/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

2 As used herein, “House Report No. 101-664” refers to House Report No. 101-664, P.l.

101-433, Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, H.R. Rep. 101-664, H.R. Rep. No. 664, 101st Cong.,

2nd Sess. 1990, 1990 WL 200383 (1990).

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HSIN TE CHOU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OKRA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-2535 PVT

INTERIM ORDER RE STIPULATION

TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

On December 11, 2006, the parties filed a Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice.1 The parties

have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Based on the stipulation and the file herein, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation to dismiss is deemed to be a joint

motion to approve the fairness of the settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act

(“FLSA”). An employee’s claims under the FLSA are non-waivable, and thus may not be settled

without supervision of either the Secretary of Labor or a district court. See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc.

v. United States, et al., 679 F. 2d 1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 1982); see also House Report No.

101-664.2 The proper procedure for obtaining court approval of the settlement of FLSA claims is for

Case 5:06-cv-02535-PVT Document 20 Filed 12/13/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER, page 2

the parties to present to the court a proposed settlement, upon which the district court may enter a

stipulated judgment of dismissal only after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness. See Lynn’s Food

Stores, Inc., 679 F. 2d at 1353; see also Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 113 n.8 (1946);

Jarrard v. Southeastern Shipbuilding Corporation, 163 F.2d 960, 961 (5th Cir. 1947); and House

Report No. 101-664. In reviewing the fairness of such a settlement, a court must determine whether

the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. See, Lynn’s Food Stores,

Inc., 679 F. 2d at 1355. “If a settlement in an employee FLSA suit does reflect a reasonable

compromise over issues, such as FLSA coverage or computation of back wages, that are actually in

dispute[,] ... the district court [may] approve the settlement in order to promote the policy of

encouraging settlement of litigation.” Id. at 1355. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than January 5, 2006 the parties shall file a short

joint statement in support of the motion to approve the settlement. The statement shall include: 1) a

rough estimate of the amount in dispute for each Plaintiff; 2) the general basis for any bona fide

factual dispute as to either the nature of the Plaintiffs’ primary duties or the number of overtime

hours actually worked by the Plaintiffs; 3) the amount of settlement proceeds to be paid to each

Plaintiff; and 4) the amount of attorneys fees to be paid to Plaintiffs’ counsel by Defendants under

the settlement agreement (see, e.g., Dail v. George A. Arab, Inc., 391 F.Supp.2d 1142, 1145 (M.D.

Fla. 2005) (approving parties’ agreement as to attorneys fees award in connection with approving

fairness of settlement)).

Dated: 12/13/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02535-PVT Document 20 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 2