1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND DIVISION 

JORDAN SMITH, Individually and On 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

§ 

§ 

 Plaintiffs, § 

 § 

v. § CASE NO 7:20-cv-00145 

 § 

RETURN DISPOSAL, LLC & 

TOBEN SCOTT, 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF FLSA SETTLEMENT AND 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Jordan Smith (“Plaintiff”) and Return Disposal, LLC and Toben Scott 

(“Defendants”) (collectively “the Parties”) file this Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA 

Settlement and Stipulation of Dismissal of Lawsuit with Prejudice and in support would show as 

follows: 

I. SUMMARY 

The Parties have reached a settlement of Plaintiff’s pending unpaid wage claims under the 

Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) seeking damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, 

and attorney’s fees and costs. 

 The FLSA settlement was the result of arm’s-length negotiations, conducted by 

experienced counsel for all parties, after formally and informally exchanging information. The 

terms of the settlement are reasonable and appropriate and fair to all parties involved. Accordingly, 

the Parties ask the Court to approve the settlement and enter an Order dismissing this lawsuit. 

Case 7:20-cv-00145-DC-RCG Document 8 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 6
2 

II. BACKGROUND 

 This is an action brought by Plaintiff pursuant to the FLSA. The lawsuit was filed on June 

10, 2020. In the lawsuit, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA by 

paying him no overtime compensation. Plaintiff seeks damages in the form of unpaid overtime, 

liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees, expenses and costs. 

 Defendants dispute Plaintiff’s claims. However, Defendants have determined that in order 

to avoid the expenses and expenditures associated with continued litigation, it was in the best 

interest to resolve the case with Plaintiff. 

III. SETTLEMENT 

 The Parties now seek Court approval of their agreed settlement. The settlement represents 

a fair compromise of a bona fide dispute concerning the compensation practices at issue and the 

hours worked by Plaintiff. The settlement does not include or otherwise impact the potential FLSA 

claims of any other employees of Defendants. This settlement is not a mere compromise of 

guaranteed substantive rights under the FLSA. 

A. HOW THE SETTLEMENT WAS REACHED

Prior to engaging in settlement discussions, the Parties independently and thoroughly 

investigated the claims and defenses at issue. These efforts provided all parties involved with great 

insight as to potential liability and the range of recovery at issue. Further, these efforts, coupled 

with the Parties’ thorough preparation and familiarity with the facts and law surrounding the 

alleged failure to pay overtime compensation, allowed the Parties to intelligently, and in good 

faith, weigh both the risks and benefits of costly and time-consuming continued litigation. 

The settlement was negotiated by attorneys who have experience prosecuting and/or 

defending this and similar claims. Both sides have had considerable experience in prosecuting 

Case 7:20-cv-00145-DC-RCG Document 8 Filed 12/02/20 Page 2 of 6
3 

and/or defending and settling federal and state wage and hour claims previously, and, in this case, 

were particularly well informed as to the facts and circumstances of the litigation. Austin v. 

Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrs., 876 F. Supp. 1437, 1472 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (“in determining the 

fairness of a proposed settlement, the court should attribute significant weight to the belief of 

experienced counsel that settlement is in the best interests of the class”); In re Coordinated Pretrial 

Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, 410 F. Supp. 659 (D. Minn. 1974) (“The 

recommendation of experienced antitrust counsel is entitled to great weight.”); Fisher Brothers v. 

Phelps Dodge Indus., Inc., 604 F. Supp. 446 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (“The professional judgment of 

counsel involved in the litigation is entitled to significant weight.”). 

B. TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The key details of the proposed settlement have been set forth in the Settlement Agreement 

which has been attached hereto as Exhibit 1, but filed under seal. 

C. SUBMITTING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT UNDER SEAL

The terms of the settlement have been memorialized in a comprehensive settlement 

agreement. Defendants have requested that the Settlement Agreement and Exhibits thereto be filed 

under seal for the Court’s review. Defendants believe that the publication of the Settlement 

Agreement and Exhibits thereto is not in the best interest of their continuing business operations, 

and Plaintiff is not opposed to the submission of these documents under seal and believes that 

Defendants have articulated good cause for submitting the documents under seal. 

IV. THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 

DISMISS THIS MATTER 

The Parties are now seeking Court approval of the settlement under the FLSA. Brooklyn 

Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945) (requiring Court or Department of Labor approval 

for FLSA settlements, and explaining the low standard for judicial review when the parties are 

Case 7:20-cv-00145-DC-RCG Document 8 Filed 12/02/20 Page 3 of 6
4 

represented by counsel); Camp v. The Progressive Corp., et al, 2004 WL 2149079 (E.D. La. 2004); 

see also Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 726-27 (1986) (in deciding whether the proposed 

settlement reflects a “reasonable compromise” of a bona fide dispute, the Court may either accept 

or reject it, but should not require the parties to accept any revisions or modifications to the 

agreement). 

The Parties believe that the terms and conditions of this settlement are fair, reasonable, 

adequate, beneficial and in the best interests of all parties. Because of the various defenses asserted 

by Defendants and the possibility that Defendants may have successfully defeated or limited some 

or all of Plaintiff’s claims, including those claims related to willfulness, liquidated damages, 

compensation, and the amount of hours worked, the Parties believe that the settlement represents 

a fair compromise of the claims. The Settlement allocates an individual amount to the Plaintiff 

based on the amount of hours worked and his rate of pay and also allocates an amount for Plaintiff’s 

attorneys’ fees and costs. Additionally, Defendant has agreed to not contest the attorney’s fees and 

expense allocation. Moreover, given the financial uncertainty associated with continued litigation 

and the strong likelihood that absent a settlement, this case would have proceeded to trial, a 

compromise of the claims prevents all parties from incurring the additional costs and delay 

associated with a trial and appeal. 

The Parties are therefore requesting that the Court: 

(a) Approve this settlement, including all of the terms set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement; 

(b) Sign the attached Order approving the Settlement Agreement and dismiss this lawsuit 

with prejudice. 

Case 7:20-cv-00145-DC-RCG Document 8 Filed 12/02/20 Page 4 of 6
5 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

By: /s/ Matt Catalano 

Melinda D. Hamm 

 State Bar No. 24059924 

mhamm@cbtd.com

Matt Catalano 

 State Bar No. 24003918 

mcatalano@cbtd.com

OF 

COTTON, BLEDSOE, TIGHE & DAWSON 

A Professional Corporation 

P. O. Box 2776 

Midland, Texas 79702 

(432) 684-5782 

(432) 682-3672 (Fax) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, 

RETURN DISPOSAL, LLC & TOBEN SCOTT 

_____________________________ 

Melissa Moore 

State Bar No. 24013189 

melissa@moreandassociates.net

Curt Hesse 

State Bar No. 24065414 

curt@moreandassociates.net

The Melissa Moore Law Firm, P.C. 

Lyric Center 

440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 

Houston, TX 77002 

(713) 222-6775 

(713) 222-6739 (Fax) 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, 

JORDAN SMITH 

Case 7:20-cv-00145-DC-RCG Document 8 Filed 12/02/20 Page 5 of 6
6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on December 2, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the 

clerk of the court for the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, using the electronic case 

filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a “Notice of Electronic Filing” 

to the attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this 

document by electronic means. 

 _____________________________ 

Melissa Moore 

Case 7:20-cv-00145-DC-RCG Document 8 Filed 12/02/20 Page 6 of 6