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

41205028v1

Laurent R.G. Badoux, AZ Bar No. 020753

LBadoux@Buchalter.com

BUCHALTER

16435 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 440

Scottsdale, Arizona 85254

Telephone: (480) 383-1800

Facsimile: (480) 824-9400

Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Josephine Tijerino,

Plaintiff,

v.

Stetson Desert Project LLC d/b/a Le Girls 

Cabaret, Cory J. Anderson, and Cary 

Anderson,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-CV-02563-SMM

(Consolidated with Case Nos. 2:15-cv- 02564 and 2:16-cv-00408

JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE 

SETTLEMENT AND STIPULATION 

FOR DISMISSAL FOR JANE ROE 

DANCER #4 (IN MATTER 2:16-CV00408) Tamicka Toliver,

Plaintiff,

v.

Stetson Desert Project LLC d/b/a Le Girls 

Cabaret, Cory J. Anderson, and Cary 

Anderson,

Defendants.

Jane Roe Dancer,

Plaintiff,

v.

Stetson Desert Project LLC d/b/a Le Girls 

Cabaret, Cory J. Anderson, and Cary 

Anderson,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Jane Roe Dancer #4 (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Stetson Desert Project 

LLC d/b/a Le Girls Cabaret, Cory J. Anderson, and Cary Anderson (collectively,

Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 103 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 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- 41205028v1

“Defendants”), Parties in matter 2:16-cv-00408-PHX-SMM, by and through their 

undersigned counsel, present this Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Stipulation for 

Dismissal. The form of Settlement Agreement approved by the Parties is attached hereto 

as Exhibit A.

I. Introduction

The Parties are extremely familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of their 

respective arguments. The Settlement Agreement that the Parties reached is a fair and 

reasonable compromise of all the respective positions of the Parties, including as to 

Plaintiff’s abandonment of her Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The Parties, therefore, 

respectfully request that the Court approve the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and enter 

the Order of Dismissal concurrently lodged with the Court.

II. Argument and Authorities

To prevent private agreements between employers and employees that have the 

effect undermining the requirements of the law, the FLSA has been interpreted to require 

the settlement of claims under the Act to be approved by either the Department of Labor 

or a court of competent jurisdiction. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); Brooklyn Sav. Bank v.

O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706 (1945); Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d

1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 1982). This District Court has explained before that, in an FLSA 

case, “the parties must seek the district court’s approval of the settlement’s terms to 

ensure that it is enforceable and fair.” Simko v. World Class Car Wash LLC, No. V-17-

03870-PHX-DJH, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205096, *3 (D. Ariz. Nov. 30, 2018) (emphasis 

in original).

First, the Parties understand that the existence of an employment relationship, 

indeed any relationship, between any of them is a matter of stringent dispute. Second, 

when reviewing a proposed settlement that involves a lawsuit in which FLSA claims

were presented, a court must review the settlement and ensure that it represents a “‘fair 

and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute’ given the ‘totality of the circumstances’ 

Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 103 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 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

-3- 41205028v1

within the context of the purposes of the FLSA.” Id. at *4 (quoting Lynn’s Food Stores, 

Inc., 679 F.2d at 1355). The Parties concur that the resolution involved is adequate and 

that the Court should so find, even as it involves a complete waiver of FLSA claims.

A. Bona Fide Dispute

“The Court must first determine whether a bona fide dispute exists. A bona fide

dispute exists when there are legitimate questions about ‘the existence and extent of

Defendant’s FLSA liability.’” Simko, at *4 (citation omitted). A bona fide dispute exists 

in this matter. The core of the Parties’ dispute is that Plaintiff contends she appeared as 

an entertainer at the Club and is entitled to compensation as an employee, while 

Defendants maintain that Plaintiff was an independent entertainer, who entered into a 

license agreement to appear at Defendants’ venue and for whom Defendants had no 

obligation to provide compensation. 

B. Reasonableness of Settlement

The settlement includes an amount of money that would satisfy the appearance(s) 

Plaintiff may have made at the Club and Plaintiff is able to address her attorneys’ fees

adequately with her counsel. The Parties elect to abandon all other and further alternative 

claims and counterclaims in light of this reasonable settlement. For these reasons, the 

Court should deem the attached Settlement Agreement a fair and reasonable resolution of 

a bona fide dispute.

C. Reasonableness of Attorney’s Fees and Costs

The Settlement Agreement provides for a total payment of $3,000.00 to Plaintiff, 

33% of which is allocated to attorneys’ fees and costs as agreed between Plaintiff and her 

counsel. This amount is neither excessive nor inadequate in this matter.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Parties ask that the Court concur that they reached a 

fair and reasonable compromise of their respective positions in this action, and 

Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 103 Filed 07/09/20 Page 3 of 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

-4- 41205028v1

respectfully request that the Court approved the attached Settlement Agreement and enter 

the proposed Order of Dismissal tendered herewith.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of July, 2020.

RUSING LOPEZ & LIZARDI, PLLC

By: /s/ Kate E. Frenzinger

Kate E. Frenzinger

Attorneys for Plaintiff

BUCHALTER, PC

By: /s/ Laurent R.G. Badoux

Laurent R.G. Badoux

Attorneys for Defendants

I hereby certify that I electronically transmitted the 

attached 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, and mailed a copy of same to the following 

if non-registrants, this 9th day of July, 2020, to:

Clifford P. Bendau, II 

THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC

P. O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060-7066

cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Michael J. Rusing

Kate E. Frenzinger

RUSING LOPEZ & LIZARDI, P.L.L.C.

16427 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 200

Phoenix, Arizona 85254

mrusing@rllaz.com

kfrenzinger@rllaz.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Lori Harpel

Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 103 Filed 07/09/20 Page 4 of 4