Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01319/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01319-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN AMBROSINO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HOME DEPOT U.S.A, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv1319 L (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE

RENEWED SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT [DOC. 79]

Pending before the Court is the parties’ second renewed joint motion for approval of the

settlement agreement. [Doc. 79.] For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the joint

motion and APPROVES the settlement agreement.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint alleging, inter alia,

violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (Amended Complaint [Doc.

21] ¶¶ 50-59.) On March 7, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion for approval of the settlement

and dismissal of the action. (Mot. Approval [Doc. 63].) On the same day, the parties filed a

joint motion to file the settlement agreement under seal. (Mot. Seal [Doc. 64].) The parties

agreed that the settlement agreement should remain confidential. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) 

On March 10, 2014, this Court denied the parties joint motions because they failed to

11cv1319

Case 3:11-cv-01319-L-MDD Document 80 Filed 08/11/14 Page 1 of 4
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

meet the Ninth Circuit’s “compelling reasons” standard for sealing the proposed settlement

agreement. (Order Denying Motion for Settlement and Motion to File Documents Under

Seal [Doc. 69].) On March 24, 2014, the parties filed a renewed joint motion to approve their

settlement agreement. (Renewed Mot. Approval [Doc. 72].)

On April 28, 2014, this Court denied the parties’ renewed joint motion because the parties

failed to demonstrate that proposed settlement agreement was “fair and reasonable.” (Order

Denying Renewed Motion [Doc. 73] 3-6.) On May 27, 2014, the parties timely filed their second

renewed joint motion to approve their settlement agreement. (Second Renewed Mot. Approval

[Doc. 79].)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Eleventh Circuit has explained that an FLSA claim can be settled in two ways. 

Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir.1982). First, an 1

employee may settle and waive claims under the FLSA if the payment of unpaid wages by the

employer to the employee is supervised by the Secretary of Labor. Id. Second, an employee

may settle and waive claims under the FLSA if the parties present to a district court a proposed

settlement agreement, and the district court enters a judgment approving the settlement. Id.

Before approving an FLSA settlement, the court must scrutinize it to determine if it is “a fair and

reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.” Id. at 1354–1355. 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.” Id. at 1354.

//

//

//

 While the Ninth Circuit has not specifically addressed the question of whether FLSA 1

claims may only be settled and resolved in two ways, district courts in the Ninth Circuit have

followed Lynn’s Food Stores. See, e.g., Khanna v. Inter–Con Sec. Systems, Inc., 2012 WL

4465558, at *10–11(E.D.Cal.2012); Campanelli v. Hershey Co., 2011 WL 3583597, at *1

(N.D.Cal.2011); Lee v. The Timberland Co., 2008 WL 2492295, at *2 (N.D.Cal.2008); Yue Zhou

v. Wang’s Restaurant, 2007 WL 17230, at *1–3 (N.D.Cal.2007).

2 11cv1319

Case 3:11-cv-01319-L-MDD Document 80 Filed 08/11/14 Page 2 of 4
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

III. DISCUSSION

The Court is has already held that this case involves a bona fide dispute over the existence

and extent of Defendant’s FLSA liability. In order to approve the proposed settlement

agreement, the Court must now determine whether the agreement is fair and reasonable.

A district court may approve an FLSA settlement if the proposed settlement reflects “a

reasonable compromise over [disputed] issues .” Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354. In its

previous order, the Court noted the following deficiencies in the parties proposed settlement and

accompanying motion: (1) the parties provided no evidence or analysis regarding whether the

settlement amount to be paid to plaintiffs was fair and reasonable, (2) the parties failed to

provide any information regarding the fairness and reasonableness of the individual settlement

amounts, allocated to each plaintiff, (3) the scope of the waiver and release provisions were

overbroad, and (4) the parties failed to produce evidence that the stipulated amount of attorney’s

fees was fair and reasonable. The Court is satisfied that these deficiencies have been rectified. 

First, the Court is now satisfied that the total settlement amount and the amount to be paid

to each plaintiff are fair and reasonable. From the parties renewed motion, it is clear that the

parties have weighed the potential value of the claims in light of the number of weeks the

plaintiffs worked during the relevant period, the plaintiffs’ individual salaries, and their

estimated overtime eligibility during the relevant period. (Renewed Mot. Approval 3-4.) The

parties have also weighed the likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claims and defenses

and determined that the settlement amount, which consists of about 47% of their maximum

damages, is a fair compromise. (Id. 4-5.) Further, the parties have clarified, to the Court’s

satisfaction, that each plaintiff received his or her pro rata share of the award based on “his or

her salary, number of weeks worked as an assistant store manager during the limitations period,

and whether he or she had a viable California state law claim.” (Id. 5) 

Second, the scope of the waiver and release provisions are now appropriate. Before,

these provisions included claims that were unrelated to the claims asserted in the complaint. 

(See April 28, 2014 Order 4-6.) Now, these provisions “appropriately track the breadth of

Plaintiffs’ allegations in the action.” (Settlement Agreement [Doc. 79-3] ¶¶ 3, 8); see Vasquez v.

3 11cv1319

Case 3:11-cv-01319-L-MDD Document 80 Filed 08/11/14 Page 3 of 4
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

Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1126, (E.D. Cal. 2009). 

Third, the parties have established that plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees in the amount of

$113,588.76 (33.3% of the total recovery) plus expenses in the amount of $39, 291.15 are fair

and reasonable. Indeed, each plaintiff has approved this amount. (Renewed Mot. Approval 6-

18.)

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the joint motion and APPROVES the settlement in its

entirety. In approving the parties’ settlement agreement, the Court balanced numerous factors,

including the strength of plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of

further litigation; the extent of the discovery completed, the stage of the proceedings, and the

experience and views of counsel. See, e.g., Torrisi v. Tucson Electric Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370,

1375 (9th Cir.1993). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2014

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

4 11cv1319

Case 3:11-cv-01319-L-MDD Document 80 Filed 08/11/14 Page 4 of 4