Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00541/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00541-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

LEGAL_US_E # 70822490.1

-2- STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JANELLE CHRISTMAN and AMY A. 

McGHIE, on behalf of themselves and others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

FPMI SOLUTIONS, INC., 

Defendant.

CASE NO. C-05-0541 

Honorable Maxine M. Chesney 

STIPULATED MOTION FOR 

CONFIRMATION OF ARBITRATION 

CONSENT AWARD AND TO CANCEL THE 

APRIL 28, 2006 STATUS CONFERENCE 

COLLECTIVE ACTION 

[29 U.S.C. § 216(b)] 

This Stipulated Motion for Confirmation of Arbitration Consent Award and to cancel the 

April 28, 2006 status conference is jointly brought by Defendant FPMI Solutions, Inc. (“FPMI”) 

and the eighty-seven Plaintiffs, by the signatures of their counsel of record to this Motion, and by 

Plaintiffs’ execution of individual settlement agreements. (Defendant and Plaintiffs are 

collectively referred to as “the Parties.”). The Parties do not request a status conference on this 

motion and request that the Court cancel the status conference currently scheduled for April 28, 

2006. The Parties agree incurring additional travel expense to attend a final status conference is 

not necessary because the terms of the settlement have been finalized and agreed upon and the 

Arbitrator has approved the settlement. The only remaining detail is the issuance of the Order for 

Final Judgment by this Court. 

RECITALS

1. Star Mountain, Inc. (“Star Mountain”) was the Plaintiffs’ employer until 

March 11, 2004, when FPMI purchased the assets of Star Mountain. Eighty-seven (87) former or 

Case 3:05-cv-00541-MMC Document 63 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 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

LEGAL_US_E # 70822490.1

-3- STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT

current employees of FPMI and/or Star Mountain opted into a collective action against both Star 

Mountain and FPMI, and alleged that their employers misclassified their positions as exempt. 

They demanded back pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees. 

2. On May 18, 2005, Plaintiffs and FPMI filed a joint Stipulation and Proposed Order 

to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration. Eighty-Seven Plaintiffs signed a Consent To Join 

Arbitration form, agreeing to participate in binding arbitration and to be bound by the rules and 

procedures of the Judicial Arbitration Mediation Services (“JAMS”). A sample of the Consent 

form is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. On May 18, 2005, Judge Chesney approved the Proposed 

Order, and the Settlement Parties proceeded to arbitration. The arbitration proceeded before the 

Honorable Curtis E. von Kann (Ret.).

3. On November 18, 2005, Arbitrator von Kann issued an Interim Award finding that 

Claimants were improperly classified and that FPMI and Star Mountain were liable for unpaid 

overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. The Award further specified that 

overtime wages would be paid according to the fluctuating workweek method. A copy of the 

signed Interim Award is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

4. Shortly thereafter, a settlement, which was subject to the Arbitrator’s approval, 

was reached between the parties. Arbitrator von Kann approved and signed the Consent Award 

on April 10, 2006. A copy of the signed Consent Award is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 

5. The Parties desire to resolve this litigation, and in doing so do not concede the 

truth or falsity of any allegation of fact made in the pleadings in this matter, nor do they concede 

the correctness or applicability of any legal theory of recovery or defense asserted in this action. 

6. The Parties have negotiated settlement agreements, which have been reviewed and 

executed by the Plaintiffs, copies of which are attached as Exhibits 4 through 89.1

 The Parties 

1

 Although Plaintiff Royd Nuckels has accepted the offer of settlement, he has not yet signed a 

Settlement Agreement due to his deployment to Iraq. His settlement agreement is identical to the 

other settlement agreements in all respects, except in amount. Plaintiffs’ counsel assures the Court 

that they have obtained written confirmation of Mr. Nuckels wish to accept the terms of the 

settlement and anticipate that he will sign the release immediately upon his return from Iraq. 

Case 3:05-cv-00541-MMC Document 63 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 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

LEGAL_US_E # 70822490.1

-4- STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT

agree that the terms of the attached Consent Award, except as noted in the releases, constitute a 

full and fair settlement of all claims raised by these eighty-seven individuals in this matter. 

7. The Consent Award was intended to and has extinguished all claims that exist or 

that may exist between the parties for minimum wages or overtime pay under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, and for minimum wages or overtime pay under 

any other federal, state or common law (except as noted in the release), known or unknown, as of 

the date that the Release Agreements, attached as Exhibits 4 through 89, were signed. Nothing in 

the Consent Award releases FPMI for any claims that are not based upon wage and hour 

violations. Specifically, Plaintiffs reserve any and all claims arising out of the employment 

relationship, including claims for paid or unpaid benefits, for Workers Compensation, ERISA, 

COBRA, HIPAA or other statutory claims, or for unique claims unrelated to wage and hour that 

fall within the employment relationship. 

8. Because the settlement includes claims raised under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

("FLSA"), the Parties recognize that a Court must supervise and approve the settlements. “Claims 

for FLSA violations can, of course, be settled when the settlement is supervised by the DOL or a 

court.” Taylor v. Progress Energy, Inc., 415 F.3d 364, 374 (4th Cir. 2005).

9. Because the case was sent to binding arbitration before the parties reached a 

settlement, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) applies. Section 9 of the FAA states in relevant 

part, “[i]f the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered 

upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court, then at any time 

within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the Court so 

specified for an order confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such order unless 

the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title.” 

9 U.S.C.A. § 9. 

10. Public policy favors expeditious enforcement of an award, even if the Court 

disagrees with the arbitrator’s legal or factual conclusions and if a party seeks to have an award 

vacated, the burden to show cause to vacate is on the moving party. Pacific Motor Trucking Co. 

v. Automotive Machinists Union, 702 F.2d 176, 177 (9th Cir. 1983) ; Schoenduve Corp. v. Lucent 

Case 3:05-cv-00541-MMC Document 63 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 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

LEGAL_US_E # 70822490.1

-5- STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT

Technologies, Inc., 442 F.3d 727, 727 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A federal court may vacate an award if 

the arbitrator engages in misbehavior that prejudices a party, or if the arbitrator exceeds his 

powers in rendering such an award...[A]rbitrators exceed their powers in this regard not when 

they merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the award is completely 

irrational, or exhibits a manifest disregard of law.”); Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Services, 

Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The FAA gives federal courts only limited authority 

to review arbitration decisions, because broad judicial review would diminish the benefits of 

arbitration.”); Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, 341 F.3d 987, 997 (9th Cir. 

2003) (citing 9 U.S.C. section 11 for the proposition that a federal court may modify or correct 

an award only where there is an evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material 

mistake in the description of any person, thing, or property; where the arbitrators have awarded 

upon a matter not submitted to them, unless it is a matter not affecting the merits of the decision 

upon the matter submitted; or where the award is imperfect in matter of form not affecting the 

merits of the controversy) (emphasis added). 

TERMS OF PROPOSED JUDGMENT

11. Plaintiffs shall have Judgment against Defendant FPMI in the following amounts: 

(a) Bacchus, Rosie: $14,438.40 

(b) Baird, Gary: $31,839.84 

(c) Bell, Fletcher: $21,313.44 

(d) Boothby, Wayne: $23,909.10 

(e) Braken, Gary: $20,483.86 

(f) Brown, Lynnette P.: $2,779.68 

(g) Calloway, Gwendolyn: $2,158.96 

(h) Camacho, Daniel $20,805.50 

(i) Cantu, Shannon: $38,912.98 

(j) Chacon, Karen: $21,200.62 

(k) Christman, Janelle: $27,927.84 

(l) Coker, Pat: $4,662.68 

(m) Collins, Shirley: $19,686.54 

(n) Cornwell, Barry: $27,103.24 

(o) Corrigan, Timothy: 22,237.86 

(p) Crooks, Felicia: $18,248.94 

Case 3:05-cv-00541-MMC Document 63 Filed 04/27/06 Page 4 of 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

LEGAL_US_E # 70822490.1

-6- STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT

(q) Darrah, John: $24,544.90 

(r) Dias, Anthony: $8,152.56 

(s) Doerfler-Lake, Cheryl: $1,623.80 

(t) Dooley, Jim: $19,028.86 

(u) Dunn, Daniel: $16,610.20 

(v) Evans, Keith: $10,206.82 

(w) Gans, Richard: $21,698.34 

(x) Grippo, Michael: $17,889.08 

(y) Handy, William: $14,023.88 

(z) Harris, Patricia: $5,899.68 

(aa) Hastings, Richard: $17,853.78 

(bb) Herbst, Debra: $13,243.92 

(cc) Hosey, Regina: $16,166.30 

(dd) Huber, Dan: $20,974.84 

(ee) Isbister, John: $14,262.66 

(ff) Jones, John: $15,298.24 

(gg) Julian, Jacqueline: $26,106.32 

(hh) Kalet, Janice: $21,071.10 

(ii) Kowalski, Steve: $28,074.28 

(jj) Kwait, Scott: $17,658.80 

(kk) Ledford, Nilaja: $19,062.48 

(ll) Lessor, Joe: $22,064.38 

(mm) Limon, Amy: $20,867.26 

(nn) Loftheim, Dennis: $25,936.00 

(oo) Lorenz, Frank: $3,590.80 

(pp) Maia, Ana Christina: $12,210.68 

(qq) Magnuson, Ron: $21,870.20 

(rr) Maisonett, Rigo: $2,412.72 

(ss) Masters, Linda: $12,818.28 

(tt) Mazer, William: $20,334.62 

(uu) Mazzoleni, Flavio: $20,379.30 

(vv) McGhie, Amy: $8,194.20 

(ww) Mitchell, Leslie: $19,317.04 

(xx) Moore, Michael: $15,918.76 

(yy) Moore, Robert: $11,614.54 

(zz) Newman, Norm: $40,286.46 

(aaa) Nguyen, Cong: $8,075.00 

(bbb) Nuckels, Royd: $2,106.48 

(ccc) O'Neil, Joanne: $23,646.08 

(ddd) Parker, Peggy: $23,067.38 

(eee) Piscane, Lisa: $10,527.16 

(fff) Pixley, Robert: $16,594.96 

(ggg) Plush, Kathleen: $1,908.06 

(hhh) Rawls, Joanne: $18,094.88 

(iii) Reilly, Thomas: $4,087.18 

(jjj) Robbins, Kathryn: $26,929.18 

(kkk) Rooks, Laura: $15,633.00 

(lll) Russell, Donna: $23,862.68 

Case 3:05-cv-00541-MMC Document 63 Filed 04/27/06 Page 5 of 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

LEGAL_US_E # 70822490.1

-7- STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT

(mmm) Russell, Janice: $19,580.74 

(nnn) Saffa, Daniel: $18,000.00 

(ooo) Schreier, Lia: $24,662.94 

(ppp) Scullark, Alfreda: $19,036.68 

(qqq) Siegel, Allen: $20,116.38 

(rrr) Simmons, Sherida: $20,942.56 

(sss) Singamaneni, Kishore: $8,632.80 

(ttt) Smith, Carole: $22,459.38 

(uuu) Soden, Eric: $13,442.18 

(vvv) Spratt, Curtis: $12,149.46 

(www) St. Pierre, Jean: $22,631.72 

(xxx) Steffensen, Henrietta: $17,107.76 

(yyy) Steide, Kimberly: $2,263.48 

(zzz) Tabol, Jeffrey: $15,684.18 

(aaaa) Taylor, Steve: $21,452.66 

(bbbb) Town, Barrie: $21,540.02 

(cccc) van Soest, Gardy: $11,596.30 

(dddd) Ward, Carl: $23,570.64 

(eeee) White, Ernie: $14,076.06 

(ffff) Wilson, Robert: $15,044.16 

(gggg) Wirtanen, Onni: $4,117.62 

(hhhh) Woodhead, David: $3,406.02 

(iiii) Wright, Wayne: $20,813.24 

12. The Parties recognize that a portion of the settlement amounts to be paid to the 

above Plaintiffs are wages and, therefore, normal payroll taxes and withholdings will be deducted 

pursuant to state and federal law for that portion of the settlement amounts paid as back wages. 

One-half of each of the above amounts represents back wages, and one-half represents liquidated 

damages. For the one-half of the settlement amounts that represent liquidated damages, the 

amounts will be reported as income on IRS Form 1099. Said payments shall be made within 10 

days of the Court’s acceptance of the individual settlements 

13. As indicated in the Consent Award, Counsel for Plaintiffs will receive 

$800,000.00, as attorneys’ fees and costs for all work performed on behalf of the eighty-seven 

Plaintiffs, issued on an IRS Form 1099. Such payment shall be made within 10 days of the 

Court’s acceptance of the individual settlements. 

 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Case 3:05-cv-00541-MMC Document 63 Filed 04/27/06 Page 6 of 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

LEGAL_US_E # 70822490.1

-8- STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT

DATED: April 26, 2006 LARSON • KING LLP 

By: /s/ 

T. Joseph Snodgrass (pro hac vice)

jsnodgrass@larsonking.com

2800 Wells Fargo Place 

30 East Seventh Street 

Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 

Telephone: 651-312-6510 

Facsimile: 651-312-6618 

Fulton M. Smith (California State Bar No. 121017) 

101 California Street, Suite 1850 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 273-2930 

Facsimile: (415) 273-2940 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs JANELLE CHRISTMAN AND 

AMY A McGHIE, REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS, 

AND CERTAIN OPT IN FLSA PLAINTIFFS 

DATED: April 26, 2006 PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

By: _______________/s/_________________________

Barbara L. Johnson (pro hac vice)

barbarajohnson@paulhastings.com 

875 15th Street NW 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Telephone: (202) 551-1700 

Facsimile: (202) 551-1705 

Sana Swe (SB # 173024 ) 

55 Second Street 

Twenty-Fourth Floor 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 856-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 

Attorneys for Defendant, 

FPMI SOLUTIONS, INC. 

Case 3:05-cv-00541-MMC Document 63 Filed 04/27/06 Page 7 of 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

LEGAL_US_E # 70822490.1

-9- STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT

ORDER UPON STIPULATION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT

The Court has reviewed and accepted this Stipulation as a proper disposition of 

this matter. Therefore, 

 IT IS SO ORDERED that the Consent Award issued by the Honorable Curtis E. 

von Kann (Ret.). on April 10, 2006 is hereby confirmed and the status conference scheduled 

before this Court for April 28, 2006 is canceled. Further, the Clerk of this Court shall enter 

Judgment in this matter, according to the provisions of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and in accordance with the terms of this Stipulation. Judgment shall be so entered 

forthwith.

DATED: __________________ __________________________________ 

 The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney 

 United States District Court 

April 27, 2006

Case 3:05-cv-00541-MMC Document 63 Filed 04/27/06 Page 8 of 8