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

While the Ninth Circuit has not specifically addressed this issue, district courts in the

Ninth Circuit have followed the reasoning set forth in Lynn’s Food Stores. See, e.g.,

Ambrosino v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. CV 11-1319, 2014 WL 3924609 (S.D. Cal.

Aug. 11, 2014); Hand v. Dionex Corp., No CV 06-1318, 2007 WL 3383601 (D. Ariz. Nov.

13, 2007).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dominique Rose, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Dalton Corporation, d/b/a Chicas Cabaret,

et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-15-2562-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for approval of settlement

agreement and dismissal with prejudice of claims by Plaintiff Dominique Rose. (Doc. 35.)

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.1

 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

Case 2:15-cv-02562-SMM Document 36 Filed 04/24/17 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Id. 

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

agreement negotiated between the parties. However, because this is an FLSA action against

Defendants, the parties must seek approval of their settlement in order to ensure its

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

compromise of the issues. 

After negotiation, the Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff $1,200 in return for a

stipulation to dismiss this action with prejudice, all parties to bear their own costs and fees.

In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel has agreed with Plaintiff not to take any portion of the

recovery as an attorney’s fee and instead will only recoup costs in the amount of $406.74.

As such, Plaintiff’s recovery will be $793.26.

The Court has reviewed the proposed settlement for $1,200 and finds that the

settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of the issues. Plaintiff faced the difficulty of

attempting to establish that Defendants’ annual gross revenues qualified it as an enterprise

covered by the FLSA. Therefore, the Court will approve the settlement between the parties

and enter a stipulated judgment of dismissal of this case.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the parties’ joint motion for approval of the

settlement reached between Defendants and Plaintiff Dominique Rose. The Clerk of Court

shall dismiss the claims of Plaintiff with prejudice, and terminate this litigation, the

settlement resolving all associated attorney’s fees and costs. (Doc. 35.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss

counts/claims (Doc. 20) and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 25). 

DATED this 24th day of April, 2017.

Case 2:15-cv-02562-SMM Document 36 Filed 04/24/17 Page 2 of 2