Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01254/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01254-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brian Smith, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Tri-City Transmission Service, Inc.; David

A. Riccio; Ciro Riccio, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-01254-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it the parties' joint motion for approval of settlement agreement

and order for dismissal of claims with prejudice as to all claims alleged against defendants

(doc. 10). Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),

29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219. The parties state that the proposed settlement agreement represents

a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. 

FLSA's provisions are mandatory and "FLSA rights cannot be abridged by contract

or otherwise wavied because this would 'nullify the purposes' of the statute." Barrentine v.

Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740, 101 S. Ct. 1437, 1445 (1981). The

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not squarely addressed how claims

may be resolved under the FLSA. District courts within the Ninth Circuit and across the

nation hold that FLSA claims may not be settled without approval of the Department of

Labor or the district court, based on Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350,

Case 2:12-cv-01254-FJM Document 11 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

1353-54 (11th Cir. 1982). See, e.g., Hand v. Dionex Corp., No. CV 06-1318-PHX-JAT,

2007 WL 3383601 (D. Ariz. Nov. 13, 2007). 

The Fifth Circuit, however, recently narrowed the scope of Lynn's Food Stores to its

facts. Martin v. Spring Break '83 Productions, L.L.C., No. 11-30671, 2012 WL 3011004,

at *6 n.10 (5th Cir. July 24, 2012). The employees in Lynn's Food Stores seemed unaware

that the Department of Labor determined they were owed back wages or that they had rights

under the FLSA, there was no evidence they consulted lawyers before signing the settlement

agreements, and some of them spoke no English. Id. Under those facts, the Eleventh Circuit

determined that approving an agreement "outside of the adversarial context of a lawsuit

brought by the employees would be in clear derogation of the letter and spirit of the FLSA."

Lynn's Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354. In contrast, the employees in Martin had legal counsel

when they filed their complaint, knew of their FLSA rights, and their settlement agreement

was within the context of a lawsuit. The Fifth Circuit determined that, under these facts, the

concerns expressed in Lynn's Food Stores were not implicated and a private settlement of

FLSA claims was binding.

It is no longer clear that a settlement of FLSA claims must be approved by the court

to be binding, especially in a case such as this with facts analogous to Martin. Plaintiff was

represented by counsel when he filed his complaint April 26, 2012, and throughout the

course of this litigation. He alleged violations of the FLSA in his complaint, therefore he

was obviously aware of his rights under this statute. The parties settled their disagreements

within the context of a pending lawsuit. Following the logic of Martin, such a settlement

agreement could reasonably be found binding upon the parties even without court approval.

The court has reviewed the proposed settlement agreement and finds that it fairly and

reasonably resolves the parties' dispute. Defendants contested liability under the FLSA.

There is a genuine dispute as to whether plaintiff was an exempt employee. There is no

evidence of collusion or overreaching by defendants. This action was quickly resolved, less

than four months after plaintiff filed his complaint. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the joint motion for approval of settlement

Case 2:12-cv-01254-FJM Document 11 Filed 08/23/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

agreement (doc. 10).

IT IS ORDERED DISMISSING all claims with prejudice, with each party to bear

its own attorneys' fees and costs.

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-01254-FJM Document 11 Filed 08/23/12 Page 3 of 3