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

PIEKARSKI & BRELSFORD, P.C.

2633 E. INDIAN SCHOOL RD., STE. 460

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Phone: (602) 956-1161

Email: chris@pb-lawfirm.com

Fax: (602) 956-1161

Christopher J. Piekarski (AB# 019251)

Nathan J. Brelsford (AB# 024853)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

DECONCINI MCDONALD YETWIN & LACY, P.C.

2525 EAST BROADWAY BLVD., SUITE 200

TUCSON, AZ 85716-5300

(520) 322-5000

Gary F. Urman (AZ # 11748)

gurman@dmyl.com

SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, L.L.C.

3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 200

Metairie, la 70002

(504) 828-3700

Kevin G. Barreca (pro hac vice)

kbarreca@sessions.legal

Attorneys for Defendant EGS Customer Care, 

Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Douglas Wilkerson, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

EGS Customer Care, Inc. 

Defendant.

NO. 2:15-cv-01656-DJH

JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF 

SETTLEMEMNT AGREEMENT AND 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS ALL 

CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE

The above-captioned Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) lawsuit has been settled. 

Defendant EGS Customer Care, Inc. (“EGS”) and Plaintiffs Douglas Wilkerson, Joshua 

Luna and Ryan Adverderada (“Plaintiffs”), respectfully move the Court to: (1) approve the 

Settlement Agreement that is attached as Exhibit A as fair and reasonable; (2) approve the 

filing of the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit A under seal in accordance with 

LRCiv 5.6 due to the bargained-for confidentiality provisions; and (3) for an Order 

approving the Agreement and dismissing with prejudice all of the claims that are alleged in 

this matter. The Parties respectfully submit that this Motion should be granted because the 

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 26 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 6
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

Settlement Agreement was reached in an adversarial context and represents a fair and 

reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. 

The Parties bring this Motion to the Court out of an abundance of caution as, in the 

context of suits brought directly by employees against their employer under Section 216(b) 

to recover back wages for alleged FLSA violations, there is precedent indicating that the

parties should present any proposed settlement to the district court, which may enter a 

stipulated judgment after reviewing the settlement for fairness. Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. 

United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Brooklyn Savings Bank v. 

O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945). Though the Ninth Circuit has yet to offer any guidance to this 

regard, there is precedent from this district that indicates, where parties are represented by 

counsel and aware of their relevant rights, their settlement of FLSA claims should be 

permitted binding effect even without court approval. See Smith v. Tri-City Transmission 

Serv., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119428 (D. Ariz. Aug. 23, 2012) (holding that “[i]t is no 

longer clear that settlement of FLSA claims must be approved by the court to be binding, 

especially in a case such as this . . . . Plaintiffs were represented by counsel when they filed 

their complaint . . . and throughout the course of this litigation. They alleged violations of 

the FLSA in their complaint, therefore they were obviously aware of their rights under this 

statute. 

The parties settled their disagreements within the context of a pending lawsuit. 

Following the logic of [other precedent], such a settlement agreement could reasonably be 

found binding upon the parties even without court approval”). Accordingly, especially 

where the parties are represented by competent counsel and where settlement is arrived at in 

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 26 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 6
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

the context of adversarial proceedings already underway, at least some deference should be 

given to the parties’ decision to settle the matter and to the terms of that settlement.

In this case, both Plaintiffs and Defendants are, and have been, represented by competent 

and accomplished attorneys who are well aware of the law at issue in this matter and who 

have apprised their clients of that law in relation to their clients’ interests. The Parties, 

recognizing the various countervailing considerations at issue and being fully apprised by 

counsel, have reached a compromise to resolve this action, including attorneys’ fees for 

Plaintiffs. 

More specifically, as this Court is certainly already aware, the law governing wage 

disputes, especially those involving overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act (“FLSA”) as in this litigation, often presents ambiguity and the circumstances 

surrounding such claims often permit reasonable parties to present differing views as to the 

viability of the wage claims asserted. As this Court is also certainly aware, litigation is a 

costly and demanding process for which the result is often uncertain to a very high degree. 

The Parties, knowing the claims at issue and their attendant circumstances, the law 

governing the dispute, and the risks, uncertainties, and costs of further litigation, as well as 

being fully advised by legal counsel of their choosing, have, in the context of ongoing 

adversarial proceedings, agreed that the Agreement represents a fair resolution and 

reasonable compromise to Plaintiffs’ claims.

I. Approval of Settlement and Dismissal

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 26 Filed 12/14/16 Page 3 of 6
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

1. This matter concerns a claim by Plaintiffs that they were improperly compensated 

under the FLSA. 

2. Defendant denies Plaintiffs are due any wages, and denies that Plaintiffs were not 

properly compensated and denies any liability to Plaintiffs.

3. The Parties, through their counsel and designated representatives, reached a 

compromise to resolve this action, including attorneys’ fees for Plaintiffs, pursuant to the 

terms set forth in the Agreement attached as Exhibit A. The Agreement provides for a 

specific settlement amount to be paid to Plaintiffs, and an amount to be paid to Plaintiffs’

attorney. The Agreement also includes a release of claims by Plaintiffs and a 

confidentiality provision.

4. The Parties agree that the Agreement represents a fair and equitable resolution and 

reasonable compromise. 

5. The Agreement is in the best interests of all the Parties and has been accepted by the 

Parties. The parties have executed the Agreement.

6. The Parties, through their respective counsel, hereby move for approval of this 

setlement and dismissal of this action with prejudice, on the merits and without awarding 

additional fees or costs to either party, as set forth in the proposed order accompanying this 

joint motion.

7. Neither this joint motion nor the proposed order is intended to constitute an 

admission or concession by Defendant of any liability or wrongdoing.

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 26 Filed 12/14/16 Page 4 of 6
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

8. The Parties respectfully request that the Court approve the terms of the Agreement 

because it represents a fair and reasonable resolution of bona fide disputes over alleged 

unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA.

9. All the parties have been represented by competent counsel. 

II. Leave to File Settlement Agreement and General Release Under Seal

The parties jointly move to file their Agreement under seal in accordance with LRCiv

5.6 due to the bargained-for confidentiality provisions. The parties specifically agreed that 

the terms of the settlement should remain confidential. The Court has discretion to seal 

records. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Clark v. Aires, No. CV-11-0183-PHX-JAT, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63992 (D. Ariz. June 

14, 2011); Mesa Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 09-12-PHX-GMS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

11333 (D. Ariz. Feb. 3, 2009). Courts have exercised this discretion to seal documents in 

FLSA actions such as this lawsuit. See, e.g., Peterson v. Meritage Homes of Fla., Inc., No. 

2:08-cv-72-FtM-29SPC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115496 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2008), 

adopted by 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97462 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2008) (approving sealing of 

settlement agreement); Campbell v. Exthex Corp., 464 F. Supp. 2d 559, 561 (W.D. Va. 

2006) (granting leave to file settlement documents under seal where documents 

“contain[ed] little information that would be of benefit to the public generally”); In re 

Franklin Nat’l Bank Securities Ltg., 92 F.R.D. 468 (E.D.N.Y. 1981) (maintaining 

settlement documents under seal where secrecy was vital to foster settlement).

The parties jointly request that the Agreement be sealed in order to foster their 

settlement and give effect to the confidentiality provisions of the agreement, and because 

the terms of the Agreement in this single-action FLSA lawsuit are of little or no public 

interest. 

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 26 Filed 12/14/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

WHEREFORE, the parties request that the Court review the Agreement and issue an 

Order approving it as fair and reasonable. A copy of the proposed order is attached.

DATED: this 21st day of November, 2016.

PIEKARSKI & BRELSFORD, P.C.

By: /s/ Christopher J. Piekarski

Christopher J. Piekarski 

2633 E. INDIAN SCHOOL RD., STE. 460

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Attorneys for Plaintiff

And

SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, L.L.C.

By: /s/ Kevin G. Barreca

Kevin G. Barreca

3850 N. CAUSEWAY BLVD., SUITE 200

METAIRIE, LA 70002

Attorneys for Defendant, EGS Customer 

Care, Inc.

Case 2:15-cv-01656-DJH Document 26 Filed 12/14/16 Page 6 of 6