Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01365/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01365-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:1938 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 STIPULATION RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Agdipa et al. v. Grant

AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 2:06-cv-01365-DFL-DAD 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

DAVID P. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 57721) 

DAVID E. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 204244) 

WILL M. YAMADA, ESQ. (SBN 226669) 

MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, 

MILLER, JOHNSEN & UHRHAMMER 

A Professional Corporation

1912 AI@ Street 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 446-4692 

Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

DAVID W. TYRA, State Bar No. 116218 

RONALD J. SCHOLAR, State Bar No. 187948 

KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 

A Professional Corporation 

400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 321-4500 

Facsimile: (916) 321-4555 

JACQUES S. WHITFIELD, State Bar No. 147362 

DISTRICT GENERAL COUNSEL 

GRANT JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

1333 Grand Avenue 

Sacramento, California 95838 

Telephone: (916) 286-4910 

Facsimile: (916) 263-6459 

Attorneys for Defendant 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ARNEL AGDIPA, DALE 

BERGENDAHL, WILLIAM CHO, 

RALPH CORREA, MARGUERITE 

DIAS-BRECK, SARAH FARREN, 

STEVEN GRIVES, JOHN KAHN, 

EMILY KELLY, TUYEN KIM, 

BRIAN RAHLF, MATTHEW 

SCOTT, acting for themselves and 

others similarly situated 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GRANT JOINT UNION HIGH 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

 Defendant. 

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

 CASE NO. 2:06-cv-01365-DFL-DAD

 STIPULATION RE APPROVAL OF 

 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 

 DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

 AND ORDER 

 THEREON

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-01365-RRB-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 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

 

STIPULATION RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Agdipa, et al. v. Grant

AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 2:06-cv-01365-DFL-DAD 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

-2- 

 

STIPULATION

The Plaintiffs and Defendant in the above-captioned action hereby stipulate asfollows: 

1. Plaintiffs Arnel Agdipa, et al. (collectively APlaintiffs@) are presently or were 

previously employed by the Grant Joint Union High School District 

(ADefendant@). In addition to the Plaintiffs individually-named on the caption, 

Jason Carlisle, Benjamin Matta, Jr., and Joseph Pearson have joined as Plaintiffs 

and Kendall Young, William Bernard, Christopher Breck, have affirmatively 

expressed his interest in participating as Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and the Defendant 

shall be collectively referred to as AParties@ herein. 

2. Plaintiffs filed the above captioned action (AAction@) arising out of certain events 

that allegedly occurred during their employment by the Grant Joint Union High 

School District. 

3. Plaintiffs= Complaint in the Action (AComplaint@), alleges violations of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. ' 201 et seq.) (AFLSA@). The Complaint seeks 

recovery of allegedly unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and 

costs. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over 

the parties. 

4. The Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint denying its material allegations 

and asserting affirmative defenses thereto. 

5. On October 17, 2006 Plaintiffs filed a Hoffman LaRoche motion for notice to 

similarly situated individuals. On February 28, 2007, the parties attended oral 

argument on this Hoffman LaRoche motion. 

6. On March 27, 2007, Defendant sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a letter, claiming that the 

Defendant District constitutes an arm of the State of California. Defendant 

further claimed that as a State entity, Defendant isimmune from back pay liability 

for any violations of the FLSA. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-01365-RRB-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 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

 

STIPULATION RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Agdipa, et al. v. Grant

AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 2:06-cv-01365-DFL-DAD 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

-3- 

7. On April 10, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to send notice to potential 

class members. 

8. The Plaintiffs’ claims are in all respects controverted, by the district, and the 

Plaintiffs dispute whether the District is immune from suit under the FLSA 

pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. The District’s dispute of the issues raised 

in Plaintiffs’ Complaint expressly includes, but is not limited to, its dispute of 

whether the FLSA requires the inclusion of the cash out in lieu of healthcare 

coverage in the regular rate of pay, the applicability of the FLSA to the facts as 

alleged in the Complaint, as well as the applicable level of compensation, and all 

other claims, allegations and requests for damages. 

9. The Parties have engaged in extensive negotiations in an attempt to resolve their 

differences, and throughout these negotiations all Parties were, and continue to 

be, represented by counsel experienced in wage and employment matters. 

10. The Parties wish to avoid the potential uncertainty, expense and delayoflitigation 

and have therefore, based upon their extensive negotiations, agreed to a 

settlement of the Parties= dispute. The terms of the Parties= agreement are 

embodied in the Settlement Agreement and General Release of All Claims 

(“Settlement Agreement@) which all Parties have executed. A copy of the 

Settlement Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein. 

11. Plaintiffs= potential recovery at trial, if any, remains unknown, but the Parties 

believe that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are consistent with and within 

the range of reasonable results that Plaintiffs might expect to obtain after a trial; 

12. Courts have determined that the provisions of the FLSA are mandatory and 

cannot generally be abridged by contract or otherwise waived. Lynn=s Food 

Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982). However, 

when employees bring a private action for compensation under the FLSA, and 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-01365-RRB-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 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

 

STIPULATION RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Agdipa, et al. v. Grant

AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 2:06-cv-01365-DFL-DAD 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

-4- 

present the district court a proposed settlement, the district court may enter a 

judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness. Id. at 1353. 

13. The Parties present the Court with this Stipulation re Approval of Settlement 

Agreement and Dismissal with Prejudice and [Proposed] Order Thereon 

(AStipulation and Order@) through which they intend to finally resolve all claims 

asserted in this Action based upon the Settlement Agreement. Only the named 

Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs who opted into the action, and Plaintiffs Kendall Young, 

Christopher Breck, and William Bernard, who execute a release agreement willbe 

bound by this dismissal with prejudice. This dismissal will not affect the rights of 

any other employee who has received notice of this action. 

14. By entering into this Stipulation and requesting Court approval, the Parties do not 

intend that the Court should make any findings or determination regarding the 

Defendant=s alleged violation of the FLSA, or any other federal or state law, 

regulation, order, or rule. This Stipulation and Order, and any exhibits and any 

other documents or written materials prepared in conjunction with this Stipulation 

and Order, should not constitute evidence of, or any admission of, anyviolation of 

the FLSA, or any other federal or state law, regulation, order, or rule by any 

Party. 

15. The Parties jointly request the Court approve of and enter the Stipulation and 

Order; IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED, by and between the Parties, through 

their respective counsel, that: 

1. The Settlement Agreement which is incorporated herein by reference, is 

fair, reasonable and just in all respects as to the named Plaintiffs, the 

Plaintiffs who have opted in, and the individuals who chose to be bound 

by this dismissal, and the Court should therefore approve the Settlement 

Agreement and enter this Stipulation and Order; 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-01365-RRB-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/26/07 Page 4 of 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

 

STIPULATION RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Agdipa, et al. v. Grant

AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 2:06-cv-01365-DFL-DAD 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

-5- 

2. The Court should expressly reserve jurisdiction with respect to this Action 

for the purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement; 

3. The award and allocation of costs and attorneys fees should be as 

provided for in the Settlement Agreement; 

4. Upon the Court=s approval of the Settlement Agreement, this Action 

should be dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: June __, 2007 MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, 

 MILLER, JOHNSEN & UHRHAMMER 

 By: 

 DAVID E. MASTAGNI 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: June __, 2007 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, 

 TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 

 By: ______________________________ 

 DAVID W. TYRA

 Attorney for Defendant 

Dated: June __, 2007 DISTRICT GENERAL COUNSEL 

 GRANT JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 

 By: ______________________________ 

 JACQUES S. WHITFIELD 

 Attorney for Defendant 

ORDER

The Court has carefully reviewed the Settlement Agreement, and the proposed 

Stipulation and Order. Based upon a review of the record, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 

1. The Settlement Agreement, which is incorporated herein by reference, is 

approved as fair, reasonable and just in all respects as to the named Plaintiffs, the 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-01365-RRB-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/26/07 Page 5 of 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

 

STIPULATION RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Agdipa, et al. v. Grant

AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 2:06-cv-01365-DFL-DAD 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

-6- 

Plaintiffs who have opted in, and the individuals who chose to be bound by this 

dismissal and the Parties shall perform the Settlement Agreement in accordance 

with its terms; 

2. The Court expressly reserves jurisdiction with respect to this Action for the 

purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement; 

3. The award of and allocation of costs and attorneys fees shall be as provided for 

in the Settlement Agreement; 

4. The Court has made no findings or determination regarding the Defendant=s 

alleged violation of the FLSA, or any other federal or state law, regulation, order, 

or rule, and this Stipulation and Order and any exhibits and any of the other 

documents or written materials prepared in conjunction with this Stipulation and 

Order shall not constitute evidence of, or any admission of, any violation of the 

FLSA, or any other federal or state law, regulation, order, or rule; 

5. This Action is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

 

 Dated: July 25, 2007 /s/ Ralph R. Beistline_______________

 HONORABLE RALPH R. BEISTLINE. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-01365-RRB-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/26/07 Page 6 of 6