Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-06057/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-06057-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 As used herein, “House Report No. 101-664” refers to House Report No. 101-664, P.l. 1

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

DANIEL TORRES, et al, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

PENINSULA HOUSEHOLD SERVICES,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 09-6057 PVT 

INTERIM ORDER RE STIPULATED

DISMISSAL WITH RESPECT TO

GERALDO CASTILLO &

(PROPOSED) ORDER

On February 19, 2010, the parties filed a Stipulated Dismissal with Respect to Geraldo

Castillo & (Proposed) Order. 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 the claims of Geraldo

Castillo is deemed to be a joint motion to approve the fairness of the settlement of his 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 (11 Cir. 1982); see th

also House Report No. 101-664. The proper procedure for obtaining court approval of the 1

Case 5:09-cv-06057-PSG Document 13 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 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

The court expresses no opinion regarding the res judicata effect of any such dismissal, 2

in light of the non-waivability of FLSA claims, or on whether such a stipulated dismissal would

nontheless constitute a failure to prosecute, warranting dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Valencia v. French Connection Bakery, Inc., 2008 WL 152228, *2 (N.D.

Cal. January 15, 2008).

ORDER, page 2

settlement of FLSA claims is for 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 March 9, 2010 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 Plaintiff Castillo; 2) the general basis for any bona fide

factual dispute as to either the nature of Plaintiff Castillo’s primary duties or the number of overtime

hours actually worked by Plaintiff Castillo; 3) the amount of settlement proceeds to be paid to

Plaintiff Castillo; 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)).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is without prejudice to the parties filing a

stipulated dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) on or before March 9,

2010.2

Dated: 2/22/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:09-cv-06057-PSG Document 13 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2