Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02260/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02260-3/pdf.json

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

1

On January 24, 2011, Plaintiff George Ganev withdrew his claim via a Notice of

Withdrawal. The Settlement Agreement therefore resolves the claims of the twenty-five remaining

Plaintiffs.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Yusuf M. BOGOR, on behalf of himself and all

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN PONY EXPRESS, INC, an

Arizona Corporation, a.k.a. ALLSTATE CAB

COMPANY; V.I.P. TAXI; Gregory GIRARD

and Ethne GIRARD, husband and wife; Ira

GIRARD and Maryanne GIRARD, husband and

wife; Alfredo MOYA and Jane Doe MOYA,

husband and wife; JHR INVESTMENT

SERVICES, LP; WINGED FOOT

INVESTMENT, LP, David GAUER and Jane

Doe GAUER, husband and wife; Eugene

RAPOPORT and Jane Doe RAPOPORT,

husband and wife; Henry ELIZER and Jane Doe

ELIZER, husband and wife. 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-cv-02260-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Proposed

FLSA Class Settlement (Doc. 202). The Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act

(“FLSA”) Opt-in Class of “Drivers who leased taxis from American Pony Express from October

2006 to the present for the purpose of transporting passengers to and from the airport in accordance

with its agreement with the City” on May 17, 2010 (Doc. 66). After the Court granted conditional

certification, twenty-five individuals filed Consent Forms to opt in to the action.1

 

Case 2:09-cv-02260-JAT Document 204 Filed 05/24/11 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

2

The parties have reached a settlement resolving all of Plaintiffs’ claims in this case and have

submitted the proposed settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) for the Court’s

approval. Normally, the Court does not rule on a private settlement negotiated between parties. But

because Mr. Bogor filed a FLSA action against Defendants, the parties must seek approval of their

stipulated settlement in order to ensure the enforceability of the Settlement Agreement. Lynn’s Food

Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Thornton v. Solutionone

Cleaning Concepts, Inc., 2007 WL 210586 *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2007). The Court may approve

the settlement if it reflects a “reasonable compromise over issues.” Lynn’s, 679 F.2d at 1354.

The Court has reviewed the proposed Settlement Agreement and finds it reflects a fair and

reasonable resolution of the issues. Defendants strongly contested liability under the FLSA;

claiming the Plaintiffs were independent contractors, not employees. Further, the Plaintiffs likely

would have faced a motion for decertification, with its concomitant heightened standards for

demonstrating similarity. Finally, the proposed distribution to each Plaintiff is fair because the

proposed distribution relates to the hours worked without receiving the claimed minimum wage. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the Joint Motion for Approval of Proposed FLSA Class

Settlement (Doc. 202).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED APPROVING the Settlement Agreement and directing the

parties to consummate and implement the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms

immediately.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-02260-JAT Document 204 Filed 05/24/11 Page 2 of 2