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

GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 

Leon B. Silver (AZ Bar No. 012884) 

Kami M. Hoskins (AZ Bar No. 026271) 

Two North Central Avenue, Ste. 2200 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

Telephone: (602) 794-2468 

Fax: (602) 265-4716 

E-mail: lsilver@grsm.com

khoskins@gsrm.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC 

Clifford P. Bendau, II (AZ Bar No. 030204) 

Christopher J. Bendau (AZ Bar No. 032981) 

P.O. Box 97066 

Phoenix, Arizona 85060 

Telephone: (480) 382-5176 

Fax: (480) 304-3805 

Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

chris@bendaulaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Christina J. Wagner, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Frimmel Management LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-02138-SMM

JOINT MOTION TO FILE JOINT 

MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF FLSA 

SETTLEMENT UNDER SEAL 

The parties jointly move pursuant to LRCiv 5.6 for an order authorizing them to file 

under seal the Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement (the “Approval Motion”). 

The parties support the Motion with the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities 

and all matters of record, which are incorporated herein by reference. 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

I. INTRODUCTION. 

On October 24, 2015, Plaintiff Christina Wagner (“Plaintiff”) filed the abovecaptioned case against defendants Frimmel Management, LLC and Bret Frimmel 

Case 2:15-cv-02138-SMM Document 32 Filed 04/12/19 Page 1 of 4
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

(collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on January 5, 

2016 [Doc. No. 11]. Plaintiff alleges claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 

29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. for alleged minimum wage violations. 

The Court dismissed two of Plaintiff’s claims, and stayed the litigation pending the 

outcome of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the appeals consolidated under Marsh v. J. 

Alexander’s LLC, No. 15-15791. The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Marsh, and the 

United States Department of Labor subsequently issued revised guidance related to its 

interpretation of the law relied upon by the Ninth Circuit. 

The parties settled their dispute and notified the Court. As a term of their settlement, 

the parties agreed to keep the settlement confidential. The Court entered an Order on 

March 7, 2019 ordering the parties to file a motion to approve their settlement agreement 

[Doc. No. 27]. Accordingly, the parties seek to file the joint motion to approve the 

settlement under seal. 

II. LEGAL AUTHORITY. 

The parties seek authorization to file the Approval Motion under seal. Under LRCiv 

5.6(b), the Court may order the sealing of a document pursuant to a motion, stipulation, or 

the Court’s own motion. In the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking to seal judicial records must 

show that “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings outweigh the general 

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

In this case, confidentiality is a material term of the parties’ agreement, and the 

parties have agreed their settlement should be filed under seal. Additionally, Defendants 

dispute they violated the law, but given the evolving state of the law, they believe 

settlement is the reasonable resolution to the parties’ dispute. Maintaining the 

confidentiality of the agreement, however, is critical to Defendants so as not to invite future 

unsubstantiated claims by former or current employees based on an unresolved and everCase 2:15-cv-02138-SMM Document 32 Filed 04/12/19 Page 2 of 4
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

evolving area of the law. 

The parties believe the benefits of settlement outweigh the risks and costs associated 

with litigating the lawsuit to trial and potential additional appeals. The parties also believe 

resolving the case without additional litigation outweighs the public’s interest in the 

parties’ settlement. For these reasons, the parties’ request that the Court preserve 

confidentiality of their settlement agreement and authorize them to file the Approval 

Motion under seal. 

III. CONCLUSION. 

The parties respectfully request the Court enter an Order: (i) granting Motion; (ii) 

authorizing them to file the Approval Motion under seal; and (iii) granting the parties such 

other and further relief as is just and proper under the facts and circumstances. 

Contemporaneous with this Motion, the parties will lodge the Approval Motion with the 

Court pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(c). 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12th day of April, 2019. 

GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 

LLP 

/s/ Kami M. Hoskins 

Leon B. Silver 

Kami M. Hoskins 

Attorneys for Defendants 

BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC 

/s/ Clifford P. Bendau, II (with permission) 

Clifford P. Bendau, II 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Case 2:15-cv-02138-SMM Document 32 Filed 04/12/19 Page 3 of 4
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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 12, 2019, I electronically transmitted the foregoing 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 

Clifford P. Bendau, II 

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC 

P.O. Box 97066 

Phoenix, Arizona 85018 

cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff 

/s/ Kimberly Davison 

Case 2:15-cv-02138-SMM Document 32 Filed 04/12/19 Page 4 of 4