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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Before the Court is the parties’ Renewed Joint Motion to Approve Settlement 

Agreement (the “Motion”). (Doc. 252) Defendants had agreed to the first such motion, 

reserving the rights to object to the upcoming motion and application for attorneys’ fees 

which Plaintiff indicated she will file following approval of the Settlement Agreement, and 

the Court assumes that Defendants still reserve the right to object. (Doc. 248) The parties 

set forth the terms and conditions of their settlement in their Revised Class Action 

Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), which is attached to the Motion. 

(Doc. 252, Ex. B) The Court incorporates into this Order the definitions in the Settlement 

Agreement, including the capitalized terms as used in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court will not restate the applicable law in its entirety here because it already 

did so in its order denying approval of the first version of the Settlement Agreement. (Doc. 

250) The key piece of the standard is that when parties seek approval of a FLSA settlement, 

a district court may approve the settlement if it reflects a “reasonable compromise over the 

issues.” Lopez v. Arizona Public Service Co., 2010 WL 1403873, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 

Mary McNamara, Individually, and on 

Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated,

 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Infusion Software, Inc., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-17-04026-PHX-SPL 

ORDER

Case 2:17-cv-04026-SPL Document 253 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 5
2

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

2010) (quoting Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352–53 (11th 

Cir. 1982)). The Court finds that the parties properly addressed its concerns regarding the 

first version of the Settlement Agreement and accordingly, will approve the newest version 

of the Settlement Agreement.1

The Court requested from the parties that they: (1) explain and provide information 

on how they calculated the proposed settlement amounts for each plaintiff who submitted 

hours; (2) rework the language related to a general release or explain what it meant to 

ensure the Court would understand the scope of such release; and (3) rework the language 

of the reversionary clause or explain why it was present. (Doc. 250 at 4–6)

Regarding the last two items, the Court notes that the parties removed the general 

release provision and reworked the reversionary clause to provide that “[a]ny amount 

remaining in the Settlement Fund six months after the distribution of payments to Plaintiff 

and the Collective shall be donated to United Way of Mesa. (Doc. 252, Ex. B at 16) 

Accordingly, those two parts of the Settlement Agreement are no longer an obstacle to the 

Court’s approval.

Regarding the first item, the parties provided the Court with detailed information as 

to each employee who submitted hours. Indeed, the parties clarified what Plaintiff meant 

when stating that “the settlement accounts for the risk that such recovery may not occur at 

all after trial and/or any appeal.” (Doc. 247 at 7) The parties explained that such statement 

was made because: (1) Infusion has expressed that it is struggling financially, and (2) that 

if Plaintiffs obtained a favorable ruling on the application of the “fluctuating work week”, 

Defendant would appeal that ruling all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States 

if needed. (Doc. 252) This is a reasonable explanation.

1

In its March 24, 2020 order, the Court found that there was a bona fide dispute of 

issues regarding overtime compensation under the FLSA and that such dispute would be 

resolved by the proposed Settlement Agreement. (Doc. 250 at 3) The Court, however, was 

not convinced that the Settlement Agreement was fair and reasonable as required under 

Lynn’s and requested that the parties address its concerns and provide more information.

Case 2:17-cv-04026-SPL Document 253 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Furthermore, and more importantly, the parties provided data for each plaintiff who 

submitted hours as part of the case in a clear and concise table. (Doc. 247, Ex. A) The 

Court requested information regarding the amount of overtime hours claimed by each 

employee, the overtime calculations made on behalf of each employee, how much each 

employee’s damages were contained within the two-year and three-year statute of 

limitations periods, and the exemptions asserted by Defendants on each employee. (Doc. 

250 at 4) The parties provided that information and more. The Court finds that the 

settlement amount provided for each Plaintiff listed in the table is fair and reasonable 

because it appears to take into account the amount of damages involved in each of the two 

statutes of limitations periods, the relative strength and weaknesses of each case, and 

whether the Plaintiff claimed full hours or partial hours for the relevant time periods. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the settlement amounts for each Plaintiff and the overall

settlement amount of $1,525,000.00 are fair and reasonable.

IT IS ORDERED that Parties’ Renewed Joint Motion to Approve Settlement 

Agreement (Doc. 252) is granted in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

1. The Court finds that the settlement of this action, on the terms and conditions set 

forth in the Settlement Agreement, is in all respects fundamentally fair, 

reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of Plaintiff and the Collective, 

especially in light of: “the strength of the Plaintiff’s case; the risk, expense, 

complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; . . . the amount offered in 

settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; 

the experience and views of counsel; and the reaction of the [Plaintiff and 

Collective] to the proposed settlement.” See In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” 

Mktg., Sales Practices, and Prods. Liab. Litig., 895 F.3d 597, 611 n.18 (9th Cir. 

2018) (quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)).

Case 2:17-cv-04026-SPL Document 253 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 5
4

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. The Settlement Agreement, which is attached in full as Exhibit B to Docket 

Number 252, shall be deemed incorporated herein, is finally approved and shall 

be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions thereof, except as 

amended by any order issued by this Court. All terms of the Settlement 

Agreement are approved by this Order. The fact that this Order specifically 

identifies or summarily recapitulates some, but not other, provisions of the 

Settlement Agreement does not modify any provision of the Settlement 

Agreement, nor does it elevate or demote any provision vis á vis any other 

provision, nor does it create an inference in that regard.

3. The Parties are directed to consummate the Settlement Agreement in accordance 

with its terms. 

4. By operation of this Order, Plaintiff and the Collective release and forever 

discharge the Released Entities from the claims identified in Section 3.1 of the 

Settlement Agreement.

5. This Order is not, and shall not be construed as, an admission by Defendants of 

any liability or wrongdoing in this or in any other proceeding.

6. The Court makes the following awards pursuant to the Settlement Agreement:

a. $1,525,000.00 as total payment to Plaintiff and the Collective to be paid 

as set forth in Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement.

b. Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as determined by the Court 

once Plaintiff and Defendants will have filed briefing on the issue.

7. Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to reasonable

extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement 

Agreement.

8. Without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court hereby retains continuing 

and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties and all matters relating to this action 

and/or the Settlement Agreement, including the administration, interpretation, 

Case 2:17-cv-04026-SPL Document 253 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 5
5

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

construction, effectuation, enforcement, and consummation of the Settlement 

Agreement and this Order.

9. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is hereby dismissed with prejudice without costs 

to any party, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement, and the Clerk of 

Court shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 28th day of April, 2020.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:17-cv-04026-SPL Document 253 Filed 04/28/20 Page 5 of 5