-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHARLES WILLIAMS, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

K&K ASSISTED LIVING LLC, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

 / 

Case No. 15-cv-11565 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 

ENTRY OF STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL [33] 

On April 30, 2015, Plaintiffs Charles Williams, George Ruffin, and Wanda 

Turner filed suit against Defendants K&K Assisted Living LLC, K&K Assisted 

Living #1 LLC, K&K Assisted Living #2 LLC, and K&K Assisted Living #6 LLC, 

alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et 

seq. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on May 27, 2015. Dkt. No. 7. 

On January 14, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to approve the 

settlement agreement and dismiss two plaintiffs from the case. Dkt. No. 33, 34. For 

the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion [33].

2:15-cv-11565-GAD-EAS Doc # 35 Filed 01/27/16 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 368
-2- 

I. BACKGROUND

 The present case arises out of a claim for overtime compensation that 

Plaintiffs allege is due under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 

§ 201 et seq. Plaintiffs assert that they and those “similarly situated” to them are 

individuals who were or currently are employed by Defendants as direct care 

workers at the various K&K Assisted Living facilities. Dkt. No. 22, p. 11 (Pg. ID 

No. 99). Defendants operate multiple group homes in the Detroit area where 

mentally disabled individuals reside and receive around-the-clock care. Id. at 2, ¶ 1 

(Pg. ID No. 90). The three Plaintiffs were hourly, non-salaried employees for 

K&K. See Dkt. No. 22-3, 22-4, 22-5 (Pg. ID No. 124–38). Declarants each 

received an hourly wage of $8.19 per hour, without any additional compensation 

for overtime hours worked. See id. 

 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action on April 30, 2015, alleging 

Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay direct care workers overtime 

compensation. See Dkt. No. 1, p. 7, ¶ 33 (Pg. ID No. 7). On October 9, 2015, 

Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of this action as a collective action 

pursuant to section 216(b) of the FLSA. See Dkt. No. 22, p. 2 (Pg. ID No. 90). The 

Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion on November 17, 2015. Dkt. No. 25. 

 

2:15-cv-11565-GAD-EAS Doc # 35 Filed 01/27/16 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 369
-3- 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“In reviewing a settlement of an FLSA private claim, a court must scrutinize 

the proposed settlement for fairness, and determine whether the settlement is a ‘fair 

and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.’ ” Bartlow 

v. Grand Crowne Resorts of Pigeon Forge, No. 3:11-CV-400, 2012 WL 6707008, 

at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 26, 2012) (quoting Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. By & 

Through U.S. Dep't of Labor, Employment Standards Admin., Wage & Hour Div., 

679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982)). 

In determining whether a proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, the 

court considers each of the following factors, if relevant: 

(1) the risk of fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense and 

likely duration of the litigation; (3) the amount of discovery 

completed; (4) the likelihood of success on the merits; (5) the opinion 

of class counsel and representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class 

members; and (7) public interest in the settlement. 

Snook v. Valley OB–Gyn Clinic, P.C., 2015 WL 144400, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 

2015). District courts may approve FLSA settlements “in order to promote the 

policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.” Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. By 

& Through U.S. Dep't of Labor, Employment Standards Admin., Wage & Hour 

Div., 679 F.2d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 1982). 

2:15-cv-11565-GAD-EAS Doc # 35 Filed 01/27/16 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 370
-4- 

III. DISCUSSION

A. The Settlement Must Resolve a Bona Fide Dispute 

First, the Court must determine whether the parties are engaged in a bona fide 

dispute. Snook, 2015 WL 144400, at *1. Plaintiffs allege that they were not 

compensated as required by the FLSA for work in excess of 40 hours a week. 

Defendants dispute that they must pay Plaintiffs additional compensation for these 

excess hours. The Court would be required to resolve the parties’ “good-faith” 

disagreement, had they not resolved it jointly. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied 

that Plaintiffs’ FLSA claim was actually and reasonably in dispute. 

B. The Settlement Must Be Reasonable and Fair 

Next, the Court must scrutinize the settlement for fairness. Lynn’s Food 

Stores, 679 F.2d at 1353. After reading the proposed settlement, the Court finds that 

it is a fair and reasonable resolution to the parties’ dispute. See Dkt. No. 33-2. Both 

parties are represented by counsel and there is no indication that the parties’ 

agreement is anything but a “reasonable compromise” to a bona fide dispute. See

Lynn's Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354 (“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; we allow the district court to 

approve the settlement in order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of 

2:15-cv-11565-GAD-EAS Doc # 35 Filed 01/27/16 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 371
-5- 

litigation.”). As parties stated in their amended brief, the settlement bears a 

reasonable relationship to the amount in dispute, as well as the costs and risks of 

proceeding with litigation. Dkt. No. 34, p. 2 (Pg. ID No. 364). 

Finally, the Court concludes that the attorneys’ fee award is reasonable. 

Plaintiffs will receive $10,000 each. Id. at 3. Attorneys’ fees and expenses will 

then be deducted from that amount, resulting in a nettle settlement of $5,505.79 per 

client. Id. In total, Plaintiffs’ counsel will receive $6,666.00 in fees for the time and 

resources working up the case until this point, while Plaintiffs Ruffin and Turner 

will receive $11,011.58 combined. Id. Since FLSA fee awards have been viewed 

as fair even when the attorneys’ fees exceeded plaintiff recovery, the Court cannot 

say that this amount is not fair and reasonable. See Lakosky v. Disc. Tire Co., No. 

14-13362, 2015 WL 4617186, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2015) (approving a 

settlement where attorneys fees were “slightly greater” than the plaintiff’s 

recovery).

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS the Joint Motion for 

Approval of Settlement Agreement and Entry of Stipulated Order of Dismissal 

[33]. Plaintiffs George Ruffin and Wanda Turner’s claims are dismissed with 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

2:15-cv-11565-GAD-EAS Doc # 35 Filed 01/27/16 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 372
-6- 

Dated: January 27, 2016 

 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

 HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Court Judge 

2:15-cv-11565-GAD-EAS Doc # 35 Filed 01/27/16 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 373