Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01891/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01891-0/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 –

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

BRAWLEY PUBLIC SAFETY 

EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 19-cv-1891-BAS-LL

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION 

FOR APPROVAL OF FLSA 

SETTLEMENT AND 

DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

WITH PREJUDICE; AND (2) GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS PARTY

[ECF Nos. 14, 15]

v.

CITY OF BRAWLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Jeremy Schaffer et al.1 bring this action against Defendant City of 

Brawley for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). On January 27, 

2020, the Parties filed a joint stipulation and request for approval of their settlement

agreement and dismissal of this action with prejudice. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 14.) The 

Court GRANTS the joint motion and APPROVES the settlement agreement.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs and putative plaintiffs are or were employed by the City of Brawley 

 1 Brawley Police Safety Employee Association (“BPSEA”) is a named plaintiff, but the Parties 

provide that BPSEA is “not a party to the settlement agreement and “has agreed to dismiss itself 

from this matter.” The Parties also move to dismiss BPSEA. (ECF No. 15.) The Court GRANTS 

the Motion.

Case 3:19-cv-01891-BAS-LL Document 17 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
– 2 –

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

and are or were members of the Brawley Public Safety Employee Association

(“BPSEA”). (Mot. at 2.) They are non-exempt and entitled to overtime 

compensation under FLSA. (Id. at 3.) They are subject to the operative collective 

bargaining agreement entered into by BPSEA and the City (also known as the 

Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”)). (Id.) Plaintiffs claim they worked 

overtime, but, “as a result of the collective bargaining process, the City agreed to pay 

overtime pursuant to the MOU beyond what is required under the FLSA.” (Id.) 

When Plaintiffs raised this dispute, the Parties engaged in “extensive discussions” 

regarding calculation of Plaintiffs’ regular rate of pay and how the City had 

calculated the back FLSA overtime owed. (Id.; “Swanson Decl.,” ECF No. 14-2, at 

¶ 5.)

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on October 1, 2019. Plaintiffs allege the City 

violated the FLSA by failing to pay compensation for hours worked in excess of the 

40-hour threshold in a 7-day work week at the rate of 1.5 times the regular rate of 

pay. Plaintiffs sought back wages for the alleged violations going back three years, 

liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under the FLSA. 

(“Compl.,” ECF No. 1.) On November 22, 2019, the Parties agreed to a settlement. 

The settlement is as follows: Defendant will pay a total settlement sum of 

$327,912.03. Defendant will pay $277,912.03 of the total settlement sum to 

Plaintiffs and putative plaintiffs as the total amount of unpaid overtime owed and 

liquidated damages over the period of January 1, 2015 to the execution of the 

Settlement Agreement; Defendant will pay $50,000.00 of the total settlement sum in 

attorney’s fees and costs. (Mot. at 4.) Plaintiffs agree to release Defendant from all 

overtime compensation claims against Defendant under the FLSA and MOU that 

may exist or have existed as of and including the effective date of the Settlement 

Agreement with prejudice. (Id.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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

Case 3:19-cv-01891-BAS-LL Document 17 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
– 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

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 

minimum wage, 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.

“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, No. 1:16-cv-1100-DAD-SKO, 2017 WL 5257087, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 

26, 2017). However, district courts in the Ninth Circuit generally apply the standard 

adopted by the Eleventh Circuit in Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 

F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982). Id.; see also Roberts v. City of Chula Vista, No. 

16cv1955-MMA (DHB), 2017 WL 6541105, (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017); Slezak v. 

City of Palo Alto, No. 16-cv-3224-LHK, 2017 WL 2688224, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. June 

22, 2017); 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 

Case 3:19-cv-01891-BAS-LL Document 17 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
– 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

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 (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.

Finally, the Court must evaluate whether the award of attorney’s fees and costs 

is reasonable. See Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 1180; see also 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (noting 

that in a FLSA action, the court “shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the 

plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid by the defendant, 

and costs of the action”). “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).

III. ANALYSIS

A. A Bona Fide Dispute Exists

As an initial matter, the Court finds that a bona fide dispute exists between the

Parties over potential liability under the FLSA. In their joint motion, the Parties state 

that Plaintiffs believe “that the City did not include all forms of remuneration in its 

calculation of the Plaintiffs’ regular rate of pay” but the City believes that “even if 

it failed to include all forms of remuneration in its calculation of the FLSA regular 

rate of pay, there was not necessarily an underpayment in the amount Plaintiffs claim 

is owed because of how Plaintiffs were actually compensated under their applicable 

MOU.” (Mot. at 6.) The Parties also dispute whether the City acted in good faith. 

(Id.) Thus, in light of the competing views on issues central to the case, the Court 

finds that there is a bona fide dispute between the Parties.

B. The Settlement Agreement is Fair and Reasonable

Satisfied that a bona fide dispute exists, the Court next considers the relevant 

factors in determining whether the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable under 

Case 3:19-cv-01891-BAS-LL Document 17 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
– 5 –

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

the FLSA.

1. Plaintiffs’ Range of Possible Recovery

“A district court evaluates the plaintiff’s range of potential recovery to ensure 

that the settlement amount agreed to bears some reasonable relationship to the true 

settlement value of the claims.” Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 1174. However, the 

settlement amount agreed to need not represent a certain percentage of the maximum 

possible recovery. See id.; see also Nat’l Rural Telecomm’s Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 

221 F.R.D. 523, 527 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (“[I]t is well-settled law that a proposed 

settlement may be acceptable even though it amounts to only a fraction of the 

potential recovery that might be available to the class members at trial.”). Ultimately, 

the Court must be satisfied that the amount agreed to is fair and reasonable under the 

circumstances presented. See Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 1174.

Here, Plaintiffs seek three years of back pay and liquidated damages. (Mot. at 

7; Compl. ¶¶ 14, 15.) Under the settlement, Defendant will pay a total of $277,912.03 

to Plaintiffs and putative plaintiffs. (Swanson Decl. ¶ 8.) After reviewing payroll 

data and spreadsheets, the Parties believe that each individual eligible to recover 

under this agreement will receive close to his or her maximum recovery. (Mot at 7; 

Swanson Decl. ¶ 12.) The Court finds that the total settlement amount is relatively 

close to Plaintiffs’ maximum recovery. As such, this factor favors approval of the 

settlement agreement.

2. Stage of Proceedings

“The Court assesses the stage of proceedings and the amount of discovery

completed to ensure the parties have an adequate appreciation of the merits of the 

case before reaching a settlement.” Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 1177. As long as the 

parties have “sufficient information to make an informed decision about settlement,” 

this factor will weigh in favor of approval. Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 

F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998).

Here, the Parties did not engage in formal discovery. However, they

Case 3:19-cv-01891-BAS-LL Document 17 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
– 6 –

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

exchanged information and analyzed Plaintiffs’ time records and wage history. 

(Swanson Decl. ¶ 13.) There were also discussions between the Parties’ counsel 

about how damages should be calculated. (Id.) Given the information exchanged 

between the Parties and the attorneys’ research on Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court finds 

that the Parties have “sufficient information” to reach an informed decision. Linney, 

151 F.3d at 1239. Accordingly, this factor favors approval of the settlement 

agreement.

3. Litigation Risks

The Court also considers the seriousness of the litigation risks in determining

whether the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. See Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d 

at 1175–76. Here, the Parties believe they face litigation risks if the settlement is not 

approved because they dispute the extent of recovery of liquidated damages and the 

method of calculating the regular rate of pay. (Swanson Decl. ¶ 14.) Thus, in light 

of the litigation risks posed in this case, the Court finds that “there is a significant 

risk that litigation might result in a lesser recover[y]” or “no recovery at all.” 

Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 306 F.R.D. 245, 255 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 

Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approval of the settlement agreement.

4. Scope of Release

“Courts review the scope of any release provision in a FLSA settlement to 

ensure that class members are not pressured into forfeiting claims, or waiving rights, 

unrelated to the litigation.” Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 1178. Generally, “a release 

provision that tracks plaintiffs’ wage and hour claims without requiring the plaintiffs

to waive unrelated claims tips in favor of approval.” Roberts, 2017 WL 6541105, at 

*5. Here, the release provision contained in the settlement agreement tracks 

Plaintiffs’ wage and hour claims. (ECF No. 14-1, at Exhibit C.) Plaintiffs agree to 

“fully, finally and completely release, waive and discharge the CITY, and its officers, 

agents, employees, successors and assigns from any further claims under the FLSA 

and the MOU for anything that has occurred up to and including the Effective Date 

Case 3:19-cv-01891-BAS-LL Document 17 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
– 7 –

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

of this Agreement.” (Id. at ¶ 7.)

In reviewing the scope of the release provision contained in the Parties’ 

settlement agreement, the Court is satisfied that the release provision is limited in 

scope and “does not force class members to forfeit unrelated claims.” Selk, 159 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1179. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approval of the

settlement agreement.

5. Experience of Counsel

“The opinions of counsel should be given considerable weight both because 

of counsel’s familiarity with th[e] litigation and previous experience with cases.” 

Larsen v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 11-cv-5188-WHO, 2014 WL 3404531, at *5 (N.D. 

Cal. Jul. 11, 2014). “Parties represented by competent counsel are better positioned 

than courts to produce a settlement that fairly reflects each party’s expected outcome 

in litigation.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 967 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(citing In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 378 (9th Cir. 1995)).

Plaintiffs’ counsel has seven years of experience in the field of labor and 

employment law. (Swanson Decl. ¶ 2.) She has been involved in numerous FLSA 

litigation matters. (Id.) Counsel for the City has fifteen years of experience in the 

field of labor and employment law. (“Yee Decl.,” ECF No. 14-3, ¶ 2.) He has 

“developed an expertise” regarding the FLSA and provides FLSA advice and training

to numerous California agencies. (Id.) Both attorneys opine that the settlement 

agreement is fair and reasonable. (Yee Decl. ¶ 9; Swanson Decl. ¶ 9.) Finally, “there 

is nothing in the record that calls into question the experience of counsel or raises

doubt about counsel’s judgment.” Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d at 1176. Thus, the Court 

finds that this factor weighs in favor of approval of the settlement agreement.

6. Possibility of Fraud of Collusion

Lastly, courts consider the possibility of fraud or collusion in evaluating 

whether the proposed settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. The Court finds 

no evidence that the Parties or their counsel colluded or pursed their own selfCase 3:19-cv-01891-BAS-LL Document 17 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
– 8 –

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

interests in reaching the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement reflects a 

reasonable compromise of the disputed issues, damages, and expense of further 

litigation. (See Swanson Decl. ¶ 14.) Moreover, the Court finds no evidence of 

“subtle signs” of collusion, such as “when counsel receive a disproportionate 

distribution of the settlement, or when the class receives no monetary distribution but 

class counsel are amply rewarded.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liability Litig., 

654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, this factor favors approval of the 

settlement agreement.

7. Conclusion

In sum, having considered the relevant factors and the representations of the

Parties, the Court concludes that the settlement agreement is a fair and reasonable

resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA coverage.

C. Attorney’s Fees and Costs

“Where a proposed settlement of FLSA claims includes the payment of 

attorney’s fees, the court must also assess the reasonableness of the fee award.” Selk,

159 F. Supp. 3d at 1180 (quoting Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332,

336 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)). Where a settlement produces a common fund for the benefit 

of the plaintiffs, courts may employ the lodestar or percentage-of-recovery method 

to determine the reasonableness of the requested fee award. See In re Bluetooth, 654 

F.3d at 942.

Plaintiffs’ counsel provides no information as to her hourly rate or the hours 

she spent on this case, so it is impossible for the Court to evaluate the fees using the 

lodestar method, thus, the Court turns to the percentage-of-recovery method. Under 

the settlement, Defendant will pay $50,000 of the total settlement sum in attorney’s 

fees and costs. (Swanson Decl. ¶ 8.) As the total settlement fund is $327,912.03, the 

attorney’s fees and costs constitute approximately 15% of the total fund.

The Parties unhelpfully provide no information as to why the proposed 

attorney’s fees are reasonable, beyond arguing: “Because the Parties stipulated to the 

Case 3:19-cv-01891-BAS-LL Document 17 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
– 9 –

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

above fees and in an attempt to resolve the dispute expediently and with the 

Plaintiffs’ best interest in mind, Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees are reasonable.” (Mot. at 

10.) Experienced attorneys must know that simply because parties stipulate to a 

settlement, this in no way means that the attorney’s fees given as a part of that 

settlement are per se reasonable.

“[C]ourts typically calculate 25% of the fund as the ‘benchmark’ for a 

reasonable fee award.” In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 942; see Selk, 159 F. Supp. 3d 

at 1180 (approving fees constituting 24% of the total settlement fund); 

Bellinghausen, 306 F.R.D. at 256 (finding a wage and hour class settlement fair 

where the settlement fund represented between 9% and 27% of the total potential 

recovery); Jones v. Agilysys, Inc., No. C 12-3516 SBA, 2014 WL 2090034, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. 2014) (approving fees constituting 25% of the total settlement fund). 

Plaintiffs’ sought fees is much lower than the typical “benchmark” and thus the Court 

finds the attorney’s fees and costs award to be reasonable.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the settlement agreement is a fair and

reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. As such, the Court GRANTS the 

Parties’ joint motion for approval of settlement. The Court further APPROVES the 

payment of $50,000 to the law firm of Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone, APLC and 

DISMISSES this action in its entirety with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is 

instructed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01891-BAS-LL Document 17 Filed 01/30/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9