Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00279/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00279-5/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

YUE ZHOU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WANG’S RESTAURANT,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-0279 PVT

INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFF KUO’S

“NOTICE OF DISMISSAL”

On October 10, 2006 the parties and attorney Adam Wang appeared for hearing on, among

other things, a motion deemed to be one for determination of the fairness of any settlement that had

occurred between Plaintiff Kuo and Defendant.1 Based on the briefs, testimony and arguments

submitted, and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than October 25, 2006, the parties shall file

supplemental briefs regarding the procedure to be followed regarding Plaintiff Kuo’s “Notice of

Dismissal” filed herein on February 17, 2006. Before the October 10, 2006 hearing, it was not clear

whether Plaintiff Kuo settled with Defendant or was simply requesting dismissal without a

settlement. At the hearing, Mr. Kuo essentially testified that he had not settled with Defendant. 

Case 5:05-cv-00279-PVT Document 96 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 An employee may not waive his rights under the FLSA without prior DOL or court

approval. See Barrentine v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981). From the evidence

submitted so far, it appears Plaintiff Kuo has a valid claim for overtime. It appears Plaintiff Kuo, as a

waiter, was a non-exempt employee who routinely worked overtime. It also appears that Defendant

consistently paid Plaintiff Kuo the same dollar amount--a fixed salary--for pay periods made up of

differing numbers of work hours. (Not only are there different numbers of days in different months,

because overtime is only due for the hours worked in a week that exceed 40 hours, the number of

overtime hours varies greatly for different half-month pay periods.) Such payments are inherently

irreconcilable with the requirements of the FLSA. Even under the “fluctuating work week” rules, the

amount of twice-monthly pay would differ because only per week base pay is allowed to be consistent,

and the employer must still pay for each hour of overtime in an amount equal to 1⁄2 of the worker’s usual

hourly pay. See, e.g., Hunter v. Sprint Corporation, — F.Supp.2d —, 2006 WL 2709615 (D.D.C. Sept.

22, 2006). It was Defendant’s obligation as an employer to comply with the FLSA’s overtime

requirements, regardless of Plaintiff Kuo’s wishes regarding his pay. See, e.g., Lindow v. United States,

738 F.2d 1057, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 1984) (noting that an employer must pay proper overtime

compensation when it “suffers” or “permits” an employee to work in excess of 40 hours).

3 The court is inclined to strike the portion of the “Notice of Dismissal” that states “Each

side bear their own attorney fees and costs.” Plaintiff Kuo testified he never read this document.

ORDER, page 2

Thus, there is no settlement for which to approve fairness as to Mr. Kuo. 

Under Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may not unilaterally

dismiss a case once a defendant files an answer. Here, Defendant filed its answer long before

Plaintiff Kuo filed his “Notice of Dismissal.” Thus, Plaintiff Kuo’s purported dismissal of his

claims was of no effect. 

The court has not found any case law regarding the procedure to follow when a FLSA

Plaintiff with what appears to be a non-waivable valid claim for overtime2 seeks to dismiss his case

without payment where his attorney has already performed substantial work on the case and thus

arguably is entitled to an award of fees. See Maddrix v. Dize, 153 F.2d 274, 276 (4th Cir. 1946)

(noting that FLSA endows a plaintiff’s attorney with a direct interest in the claim for attorneys fees). 

The court is authorized to enter a judgment of dismissal of Plaintiff Kuo’s claims under Rule

41(a)(2), along with whatever terms and conditions may be proper in that event, including potentially

a partial award of attorneys fees.3 See, Saizen v. Delta Concrete Prods. Co., 448 F.3d 795, 801-02

(5th Cir. 2006) (court may reduce award where disputed FLSA claim is settled). Alternatively, the

court could issue an order to show cause why summary judgment should not be entered in favor of

Plaintiff Kuo based on the number of hours Kuo worked as set forth in the papers filed by attorney

Adam Wang. See Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986) (noting that courts may enter

summary judgment sua sponte so long as the losing party was on notice that it had to come forward

Case 5:05-cv-00279-PVT Document 96 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

4

It is not at all clear to the court that Plaintiff Kuo understood that: 1) by dismissing his

overtime claim he would also be relieving the Defendant of its statutory obligation to pay reasonable

attorneys fees to attorney Wang for the work he did while employed by Plaintiff, if it is determined that

Plaintiff’s overtime claim has merit; and 2) that having retained attorney Wang to sue Defendant he

might still be liable for the reasonable attorneys fees incurred even if the written fee agreement is not

enforceable. See, Spires v. American Bus Lines, 158 Cal App.3d 211, 216 (1984). Although Plaintiff

Kuo testified it was his own idea to dismiss the case, given his demeanor at the hearing the court

continues to have a serious concern that someone is pressuring him to relinquish his claim.

ORDER, page 3

with all of its evidence). The court invites the parties to brief the question of which procedure

should be followed. 

This order is without prejudice to Plaintiff Kuo withdrawing his request for dismissal in the

event he wishes to proceed with his claims.4

Dated: 10/11/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00279-PVT Document 96 Filed 10/11/06 Page 3 of 3