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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Josephine Tijerino,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Stetson Desert Project LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02563-PHX-SMM

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Jane Roe Dancer #1 and Defendants Stetson Desert 

Project LLC d/b/a Le Girls Cabaret, Cory J. Anderson, and Cary Anderson’s Joint Motion 

to Approve Settlement and Stipulation for Dismissal for Jane Roe Dancer #1 (in Matter 

2:16-cv-00408). (Doc. 101.) Because this matter involves Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”) claims asserted against Defendants, the parties submitted this joint motion to the 

Court for approval and to ensure the settlement agreement’s enforceability. (Id. at 2.) After 

review and consideration, the Court will grant the parties’ joint motion and approve the 

proposed settlement agreement.1

I. BACKGROUND

In 2014, Plaintiff was engaged by Defendants to work as a dancer at Le Girls 

Gentlemen’s Club. (Doc. 1 at 6 in CV-16-00408-PHX-SMM.) Defendants classified 

Plaintiff as an independent contractor, and in doing so, did not pay Plaintiff any wages. (Id.

at 6-8.) Plaintiff disputes Defendants’ classification of Plaintiff as an independent 

1 Unless otherwise noted, all citations are to case no. CV-15-02563-PHX-SMM.

Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 104 Filed 07/13/20 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

contractor and maintains that she was an employee of Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff brought 

this action against Defendants for unpaid wages pursuant to the FLSA and the Arizona 

Minimum Wage Act. (Id. at 8-10.) The Court consolidated Tijerino v. Stetson Desert 

Project LLC, CV-15-02563-PHX-SMM; Toliver v. Stetson Desert Project LLC, CV-15-

02564-PHX-SMM; and Jane Roe Dancer v. Stetson Desert Project LLC, CV-16-00408-

PHX-SMM under case no. CV-15-02563-PHX-SMM for pretrial proceedings only. (Doc. 

18 in CV-16-00408-PHX-SMM.) 

At the outset of the case, and pursuant to the Court’s Order, the parties briefed the 

issue of whether Plaintiff was an “employee” within the meaning of the FLSA. (Doc. 21 at 

3-4 in CV-16-00408-PHX-SMM.) The Court found that Plaintiff was an independent 

contractor under the economic realities test set forth in Real v. Driscoll Strawberries 

Associates, Inc., 603 F.2d 748, 754 (9th Cir. 1979) and dismissed this matter for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. (Docs. 52 at 14; 62 at 5.) The Ninth Circuit reversed this Court’s 

decision, finding that the statutory requirement that Plaintiff must be an employee as 

defined in the FLSA is a merits-based determination, not a jurisdictional limitation that 

must be proven at the outset of the case. (Doc. 78-1 at 7, 13-14.)

On remand, the parties now notify the Court that they have reached an agreement to 

settle this matter. (Doc. 101.)

II. DISCUSSION

Under the reasoning set forth in Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 

1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 1982), there are only two ways in which back-wage claims under 

the FLSA can be settled or compromised by employees. One, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(c), the Secretary of Labor is authorized to supervise payment to employees of unpaid 

wages owing to them. Id. at 1353. The second way is provided in the context of litigation 

brought directly by employees against their employer pursuant to § 216(b) to recover back 

wages. Id. When an employee brings a private action for back wages and presents to the 

district court a proposed settlement, the district court “may enter a stipulated judgment after 

scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Id.

Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 104 Filed 07/13/20 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

Outside of the FLSA context, the Court normally does not rule on a private 

settlement agreement negotiated between the parties. However, because this is a FLSA 

action against Defendants, the parties must seek approval of their settlement agreement to 

ensure its enforceability. The Court may approve the settlement if it is a fair and reasonable 

compromise of the issues. See Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354. 

The Court has reviewed the proposed settlement agreement. (Doc. 101-1.) 

According to the proposed settlement agreement, Defendants will pay a total of $3,000.000

to Plaintiff, of which 33% will be allocated to attorneys’ fees and costs as agreed between 

Plaintiff and her counsel, in exchange for Plaintiff’s abandonment of her claims against 

Defendants. (Id. at 2-3.) 

The Court finds that the proposed settlement agreement is a fair and reasonable 

resolution of the issues. First, the Court finds the settlement amount reasonable, 

considering the parties stringently dispute the existence of an employment relationship. In 

addition, absent the settlement agreement, the parties would have spent a significant 

amount of time litigating this case and would have risked potential adverse rulings at trial 

and again on appeal. Moreover, the proposed settlement agreement accounts for reasonable 

payments to Plaintiff’s counsel for attorneys’ fees and court costs. Therefore, the Court 

will approve the proposed settlement agreement that is entered into between the parties.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiff Jane Roe Dancer #1 and 

Defendants Stetson Desert Project LLC d/b/a Le Girls Cabaret, Cory J. Anderson, and Cary 

Anderson’s Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Stipulation for Dismissal for Jane Roe 

Dancer #1 (in Matter 2:16-cv-00408). (Doc. 101.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED approving the parties’ proposed settlement 

agreement. (Doc. 101-1.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff Jane Roe 

Dancer #1’s case, CV-16-00408-PHX-SMM, each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and 

Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 104 Filed 07/13/20 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

costs, except as expressly provided in the settlement agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate 

Plaintiff Jane Roe Dancer #1’s case, CV-16-00408-PHX-SMM.

Dated this 13th day of July, 2020.

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 104 Filed 07/13/20 Page 4 of 4