# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A pp e a l s For the Eig hth Circu it

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No . 1 8 -2 2 55

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Pau l et t e Barb ee, Ad m i ni s t rat o r o f t h e Es t at e o f Ki m b erl y Ho p e Gi l l o ck

ll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l Pl a in t i

f f - Ap p el l an t

v

.

Bi g Ri v er St eel , LLC

l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l l l l l l Def

en da n t - Ap

p el l ee

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Ap p eal fro m

Un i t ed St at es Di s t ri ct Co u rt fo r t h e Eas t ern Di s t ri ct o f Ark an s as - J o nes b o ro Di v i si o n

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _
Su b m it t ed : Ap ri l 1 9, 2 0 1 9 Fi led : J u n e 2 0, 2 0 19

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _
Befo re SHEPHERD, M ELLOY, an d GRASZ, Ci rcu i t J u d g es

.

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ GRASZ, Ci rcu i t J u dg e.

Pau l et t e Barb ee, Ad m i ni s t rat o r o f t h e Es t at e o f Ki m b erl y Ho p e Gi l l o ck ( f o r m e rl y k n o wn as Ki m Pi erce), ap p eal s t h e d is t ri ct co u rt ’ s o rd er m o d i fy i n g t h e
at t o rn ey fees i n t h e p art i es ’ s et t l em en t ag reem en t

. Becau s e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt l ack ed

au t h o ri t y t o rev i ew t h e s et t l ed at t o rn ey fees , we v acat e t h at p o rt i o n o f i t s ju d g m en t

.I . Ba ck g ro und

Ki m P i erce fi l ed a p ro p o s ed cl as s act io n ag ai n s t Bi g Ri v er St eel
, LLC (“ Bi g Ri v er St eel ”) fo r un p ai d o vert i m e wag es

. S h e as s ert ed cl ai m s u n der b o t h t h e Fai r Lab or St an d ard s Act (“ FLSA”), 2 9 U.S.C. §§ 2 0 1– 2 1 9, an d t h e Ark an sas M i n i m u m W ag e Act , Ark . Co d e An n . § § 1 1 -4 -2 0 1 t o -2 2 2.

Pi erce an d Bi g Ri ver St eel reach ed a s et t l em en t an d fi l ed a jo i n t s t at u s rep o rt

n o t i fy i n g t h e co urt t h ey

h ad set t l ed an d wo u l d s oo n fi l e a v o l un t ary d i s m i s s al . Th e

co u rt o rd ered t h e p art i es t o s u b m i t t h e s et t l em en t fo r ap p ro val
, i n cl u di n g t h e p ro p o s ed

ag reem en t an d an y

at t o rn ey b i l l i n g reco rd s . Th e p art i es co m p l i ed

.

Aft er rev i ewi ng t h e p art i es ’ s et tl em en t ag reem en t , t h e d is t ri ct co u rt d i s ap p ro v ed o f b o t h t h e s et t l em en t o f t he wag e cl ai m s an d t h e set t led am o u n t o f

at t o rn ey fees fo r i nd ep en d en t reas o n s. Pi erce p as s ed away s ho rt l y t h ereaft er, an d t h e

co u rt s t ay ed t h e cas e u n ti l i t co u l d s ub s t i t u te h er es t at e fo r h er as a p art y

.

B a r b ee, as t h e es t at e’ s ad m in i s t rat o r, an d Bi g Ri v er St eel s ub m i t ted a n ew
ag reem en t ad d res s i ng o n l y t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’ s co n cern s o n t h e wag e s et tl em en t

. Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt th en ap p r o v ed o f t h e n ew wag e s et t l em en t , ag ai n d i sap p ro ved o f t h e

am ou n t o f at t orn ey fees
, an d en t ered a ju d g m en t wi th t h e fu l l wag e s et tl em en t am o u nt

an d a red u ced at t orn ey f

e e am o u n t

. Barb ee ap p eal s , an d Bi g Ri v er St eel d o es n ot

co n tes t t h e ap p eal

.

I I . Ana l ys i s

Barb ee arg ues o n ap p eal t h at an y req u i red rev i ew of th e s et t l em en t ag reem en t d i d n o t ex t en d t o s et t led at t o rn ey fees

. W e recen tl y ad d res s ed t h e s t an d ard o f rev i ew fo r set t l ed at t o rn ey fees u n d er t h e as s u m p ti o n t h at di s t ri ct co u rt s h a v e au t h o ri ty to

rev i ew t h em

. S

ee Mel ga r v. OK Fo o d

s , 9 0 2 F.3 d 7 7 5
, 7 79 (8 t h Ci r. 2 01 8 ). Barb ee

-2

-as k s a q u es t i o n we l e f t o p e n i n Mel

g a r : wh et her t h e au th o ri t y t o rev i ew FLSA

s et t l em en t s , o r at l eas t rev i ew s et t l ed at t o rn ey fees , ex is t s at al l

.

Th ere i s a ci rcu it s p l i t o n wh et h er t o ex t en d o l d er Su p rem e Co urt cas es s o as
t o req u ire ju d i ci al ap pro val of a l l FLSA s et t l em en t s. A p ai r o f cas es fro m t h e 1 9 40 s
req u i re ju d i ci al ap p ro v al fo r so m e rel eas es o f FLSA cl ai m s , b u t t h o s e cas es l eft o p en
t h e q u es t i o n o f wh et h er t h e FLSA req u i res ju d i ci al ap p ro v al t o s et tl e bo n a fi d e d i s p u t es ov er h o u rs w o rk ed o r w a g e s o w e d

. S ee D.A. Sch u l t e, In c., v. G a n g i , 3 2 8
U.S. 1 0 8
, 1 1 4 & n .1 0 (1 94 6 ); Br o o kl yn S a v. Ba n k v. O ’Nei l
, 3 2 4 U.S. 6 9 7
, 7 0 3

– 0 4,
7 1 4 (1 94 5 ). Th e Fi ft h Ci rcu i t wo u l d n o t ex t en d Ga n g i an d O’Nei l t o req u i re ju d i ci al

ap p ro v al o f al l FLSA s et t l em en t s, bu t th e Seco nd an d El ev en t h Ci rcu it s di s ag ree. Co mp a re Ma rt i n v. S

p r i n g Br ea k ’8 3 Pr o ds

., LLC
, 6 8 8 F.3 d 2 47
, 2 5 5 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 2 ) (en fo rci ng a s et t l em en t o f b o n a fi d e FLSA d i s p u t es o ver h o u rs w o rk ed o r wag es o wed
wi t h o u t ju d i ci al o r Dep art m en t o f Lab o r ap pro v al ), wi th Ch eeks v. Fr eep o r t Pa n ca ke
Ho u s e, In c. , 79 6 F.3 d 1 9 9
, 2 06 (2 d Ci r. 2 0 1 5) (h o l d i n g p art i es can n o t s et t l e FLSA
cl ai m s wi t h o u t ap p ro v al fro m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt or th e Dep art m en t o f Lab o r), a n d Lyn n’s Fo o d S t o r es , In c. v. Un i t ed S t a t es , 6 79 F.2 d 1 3 5 0
, 1 3 5 2– 5 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 1 9 8 2 ) (s am e). S ee a l s o Ma r t i n ez v. B o h l

s Bea r i n g Eq u i

p

. Co

. , 3 6 1 F. Su p p

. 2d 6 0 8
, 6 1 8

– 3 1 (W

. D. Te x

. 2 0 0 5 ) (ex ten s i v el y rev i ewi n g t h e h i s t o ry b eh i n d t h i s st at u t o ry i n t erp ret at io n d i s pu t e).

W e h av e n ev er t ak en a si d e o n t h i s i s s u e. W e h av e n o t ed th e El ev en t h Ci rcu i t ’ s

o p i n i o n , s ee Bea u

f o r d v. Act i o n Li n k, LLC
, 7 8 1 F.3 d 3 9 6
, 4 0 5– 0 6 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 5 );
Co p el a n d v. ABB, In c. , 5 2 1 F.3 d 1 0 1 0
, 1 0 1 4 (8 t h Ci r. 2 00 8 ), bu t w e hav e nev er h ad

o ccas i o n t o i n t erp ret wh et her 2 9 U.S.C. § 21 6 req u i res ju di ci al ap p ro v al o f al l FLSA

s et t l em en t s

.

Becau s e we ag ree wi t h Barb ee t h at an y au t ho ri t y fo r ju d i ci al ap pro v al o f FLSA

s et t l em en t s i n 2 9 U.S.C. § 2 1 6 d o es n o t ex t en d t o rev i ew o f s et t l ed at t orn ey fees
, we

n eed n o t d eci d e o ur v i ew on t h e ci rcu i t s p l i t t o d ay

. Th i s i s a q u es t i o n o f l aw, an d we

-3

-rev i ew t h e i s s u e d e n o v o

. Mel ga r , 9 0 2 F.3 d at 7 7 8. Th e s tat u t e s p eak s o f al l o wi n g fees “ i n ad d i t i on t o an y ju d g m en t award ed ,” t reat i ng t h e m eri t s o f an FLSA cl ai m an d

t h e at t o rn ey fees as d is t i nct

. S ee 2 9 U.S.C. § 2 16 (b ). As a res u l t, an y co u rt ju d g m en t

o n t h e s et t l ed m eri ts wo ul d n eces s ari l y b e sep arat e fro m an y co u r t r e v i e w o f t h e

s et t l ed at to rn ey fees

. Th i s read in g o f t h e s tat u te i s co n s i s t en t wi t h t h e rat i o n al e o f t h e ci rcu i t s t h at req u i re ap p ro v al fo r al l FLSA s et t l em en ts b ecau s e su ch ap p ro val s erv es
t h e “ FLSA’ s u n derl y i n g p u rp o s e” o f p ro tect i n g wo rk ers ’ ri g ht s

. Ch eeks
, 7 9 6 F.3 d at
2 0 6

. W h en t h e p art i es n eg ot i at e t h e reas on ab l e fee am o u nt s ep arat el y an d wi t h o u t
reg ard to t h e p l ai n t iff’ s FLSA cl ai m , th e am o u nt th e em p l o y er pay s t o t h e em

p l o y ees ’

co u ns el h as n o b eari ng o n w h et h er t he em p l o y er h as ad eq u at el y

p ai d i t s em

p l o y ees i n a s et t l em en t

. See Ben ch v. Ch eyen n e Lo g is t ics

, LLC
, No

. 4 :1 4 CV1 3 2 7
, 2 0 1 6 W L
2 9 9 7 5 9 1
, at * 3 (E.D. M o

. M ay 2 5
, 2 0 1 6 ) (“ Th e Co u rt ’ s rev i ew of a p ro p o s ed FLSA

s et t l em en t i s p ro p erl y li m it ed o n l y to t h o s e t erm s p reci sel y a dd res s i n g t h e

co m p ro m i s ed m o net ary am o u n t s t o res o l v e p en d in g wag e an d o v ert i m e cl ai m s .” (q u o ti n g Ki n g v. Ra i n er i Co n s t r ., LLC
, No

. 4 : 14 CV1 8 28
, 2 0 15 W L 6 31 2 5 3
, at * 4 (E.D

. Mo

. Feb

. 1 2
, 2 01 5 ))). Th u s , reg ard l es s o f wh et h er we read t h e s t at u t e as
req u i ri n g ap pro v al fo r FLSA s et t l em en t s , we d o n o t read i t as req u i ri n g ap p ro v al o f

s et t l ed at t o rn ey

fees

.

Si n ce we c o n cl u d e 2 9 U .S.C. § 2 1 6 d o es no t req u i re ap p ro v al o f s et t l ed

at t o rn ey fees
, t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt erred b el ow. “ In o rd i n ary li t ig at io n , t h at i s , l aws u i t s b et ween p ri v at e p art i es , co u rt s reco g n i ze th at s et t l em en t of t h e d i s p u t e i s s ol el y i n t h e h an ds o f t h e p art i es .” Ga r d in er v. A.H. Ro b i n s Co

. , 7 4 7 F.2 d 11 8 0, 1 1 8 9 ( 8 t h C i r. 1 9 8 4 ). W h en al l p art i es t o a cas e s i g n a d i s m i s s al
, t h at d i s m i s s al i s effect i ve u n l es s fed eral l aw p ro v i d es o t h erwi s e. Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 4 1 (a) (1 )(A)(i i ). Th is ri g h t to d i s m i s s al i s an “ u n co nd i t i o nal ri g h t .” Ga r d i ner , 7 4 7 F.2 d at 11 9 0

. W e al s o val u e t h i s ri gh t i n t h e at t o r n e y f

e e co nt ex t b ecau se i t p rev en ts u n n eces sary li t ig at i o n

. See
Hen sl ey v. Ecker ha r t , 4 6 1 U.S. 4 2 4
, 4 3 7 (1 98 3 ) (“ Id eal l y , o f co u rs e, l i ti g an t s wi l l

s et t l e t h e am o u n t o f a fee.”). Here, t h e d i st ri ct co u rt ag reed t h e p a r t i e s ’ p ro p o s ed

wag e s et t l em en t s at i s fi ed Barb ee’ s cl ai m s

. Reg ard l es s o f wh et h er t h at as s ert i o n o f

-4

-au t h o ri t y was p ro per, t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’ s au t h o ri t y d i d n ot ex t en d b ey o n d co n cl u d i n g

t h e m eri ts s et t l em en t was s at i s fact o ry

. T h e p art i es were en ti t l ed t o set t l e t h e at t o rn ey fee i s s u e, an d n o l aw g av e t h e d i st ri ct co u rt au th o ri t y t o i n t erfere wi t h t h at

u n co nd i t io n al ri g ht

. 1

Acco rd i ng l y , we v acat e t h e p o rt i o n of th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t b el o w t h at ad d res s ed s et t l ed at t o rn ey fees

. W e d ecl i n e Barb ee’ s req u es t t o rem an d fo r en t ry o f ju d g m en t o n th e fu l l fee am o u nt b ecau s e t h e d is t ri ct co u rt l ack s au t h o ri t y u n d er Fed

. R. Ci v . P. 4 1 t o t ak e an y

act i o n o n t h e s et t l ed at t o rn ey fees

.

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

1 We n o te t h at i f FLSA s et t l em en t s are s u b ject t o j u d ici al rev i ew, t h e co u rt

wo u l d ret ai n t h e au t ho ri t y t o en s u re t h e at to rn ey fees w e r e i n fact n eg o t i at ed

s ep arat el y an d wi th ou t reg ard t o t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s FLSA cl ai m , an d t h ere was n o co n fl i ct

o f i n t eres t b et ween t h e at t o rn ey an d h i s o r h er cl ien t

.
-5

-