1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Ramiro Casillas, on Behalf of Himself 

and all Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

Amerifield, Inc.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 5:20-CV-741-XR

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)

Plaintiff Ramiro Casillas (“Plaintiff” or “Casillas”) and Opt-in Plaintiffs Manuel Valdez, 

Jr., Marco Palomo, and Isola Fadipe (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Amerifield, Inc. 

(“Defendant” or “Amerifield”), pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, hereby stipulate that the above-captioned action be dismissed with prejudice, with each 

Party to bear his or its own attorney’s fees and costs.

Plaintiffs have reached a Confidential Settlement Agreement with Defendant to resolve all 

of their claims against Defendant in this lawsuit brought pursuant to the federal Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that judicial approval of 

a FLSA settlement is not required when the parties are represented by counsel and there is a mutual 

settlement of a bona fide dispute as to the amount of hours worked as opposed to a waiver of a 

plaintiff’s substantive FLSA rights. Bodle v. TXL Mortg. Corp., 788 F.3d 159, 164-65 (5th Cir. 

2015); Martin v. Spring Break ’83 Prods., L.L.C., 688 F.3d 247, 257 (5th Cir. 2012).

Here, Plaintiffs and Defendant, each represented by counsel, jointly stipulate that they have 

Case 5:20-cv-00741-XR Document 25 Filed 01/11/21 Page 1 of 3
2

reached a mutual resolution of bona fide disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendant relative to the 

FLSA regarding whether the FLSA is applicable to Plaintiff and the Opt-in Plaintiffs and the 

amount of services/hours provided by them. Accordingly, Court-approval of the settlement is not 

required in order to dismiss this lawsuit.

There are no pending motions in this lawsuit as to any Party herein, and the Court has not 

certified a collective action.

Counsel for all Parties have signed this stipulation below. As such, this stipulation of 

dismissal with prejudice is appropriate pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, and no Order from the Court dismissing the above-captioned action is necessary 

in order to effectuate dismissal of this action.

Dated: January 11, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP

By: s/Melinda Arbuckle

Ricardo J. Prieto

State Bar No. 24062947

rprieto@eeoc.net

Melinda Arbuckle

State Bar No. 24080773

marbuckle@eeoc.net

Shellist Lazarz Slobin LLP

11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515

Houston, TX 77046

(713) 621-2277 – Telephone

(713) 621-0993 – Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

LOCKE LORD LLP

By: /s/ David M. Gregory

Evan C. Blankenau

Texas Bar No. 24092142

evan.blankenau@lockelord.com

Case 5:20-cv-00741-XR Document 25 Filed 01/11/21 Page 2 of 3
3

David M. Gregory (PHV)

Texas Bar No. 24007274

dgregory@lockelord.com

Locke Lord LLP

600 Travis Street, Suite 2800

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 226-1200 (Telephone)

(713) 223-3717 (Facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On January 11, 2021, I filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court for the 

Western District of Texas using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which served all counsel of record 

with a true and correct copy of this document electronically.

s/Melinda Arbuckle

Melinda Arbuckle

Case 5:20-cv-00741-XR Document 25 Filed 01/11/21 Page 3 of 3