Goudie et al v. Cable Communications, Incorporated
Filing
81
ORDER OF DISMISSAL - (GRANTING as follows the parties' Stipulated Motion to Dismiss 79 ). The court: (1) Dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs' individual claims against Defendant and without costs or fees to any party; and (2) Dismisses without prejudice the allegations brought under 29USC sec 216(b) of the FLSA and under Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 23, without costs or fees to any party. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed 1/9/09, by US Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED S T A T E S DISTRICT C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N
DAVID G O U D I E a n d S E A N F A R M E N , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d o n b e h a l f o f all o t h e r s s i m i l a r l y situated, Plaintiffs,
C V . No. 0 8 - 5 0 7 - A C O R D E R O F DISMISSAL
v.
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, incorporated in the State o f Nevada, Defendant. A C O S T A , M a g i s t r a t e Judge: The parties have filed a stipulated motion to dismiss this action. T h e motion stems from the confidential s e t t l e m e n t o f plaintiffs D a v i d G o u d i e ' s a n d Sean F a r m e n ' s ( " P l a i n t i f f s " ) individual claims u n d e r t h e F a i r L a b o r S t a n d a r d s A c t ( " F L S A " ) and r e l a t e d s t a t e law c l a i m s . The p a r t i e s OPINION & O R D E R
1
{JVA}
submitted t o t h e c o u r t for in camera r e v i e w t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l s e t t l e m e n t d o c w n e n t a n d t h e y a s k t h e c o u r t t o a p p r o v e t h a t s e t t l e m e n t . T h e y a l s o m o v e f o r e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t o f d i s m i s s a l o f t h i s action, dismissing with prejudice t h e Plaintiffs' individual claims against Defendant a n d dismissing without p r e j u d i c e t h e a l l e g e d 2 9 U . S . c . § 2 1 6 ( b ) F L S A a n d F R C P 23 p u t a t i v e c l a s s c l a i m s u n d e r O r e g o n w a g e a n d h o u r law. T h e F L S A ' s p u r p o s e is t o p r o t e c t w o r k e r s f r o m s u b s t a n d a r d w a g e s a h d o p p r e s s i v e w o r k i n g h o u r s . Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, 4 5 0 U . S . 7 2 8 , 7 3 9 (1981). A n i n d i v i d u a l m a y n o t r e l i n q u i s h r i g h t s u n d e r t h e Act, e v e n b y p r i v a t e a g r e e m e n t , b e c a u s e t h i s ' ' w o u l d n u l l i f y the p u r p o s e s o f t h e A c t . " Brooklyn Savings B a n k v. 0 'Neil, 3 2 4 U.S. 6 9 7 , 707 (1945). T h e r e are o n l y two ways b y w h i c h F L S A b a c k wages claims m a y b e s e t t l e d b y employees. O n e m e t h o d requires t h e S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r to s u p e r v i s e p a y m e n t t o e m p l o y e e s o f u n p a i d w a g e s o w e d t o t h e m . 2 9 U . S . c .
§ 216(c); L y n n ' s F o o d S t o r e s , Inc. v. United States, 6 7 9 F . 2 d 1350, 1 3 5 3 - 5 4 ( 1 1 t h Cir. 1982). An
employee w h o accepts s u c h a s u p e r v i s e d p a y m e n t thereby w a i v e s h i s right t o b r i n g s u i t for b o t h t h e u n p a i d w a g e s a n d f o r l i q u i d a t e d d a m a g e s , p r o v i d e d the e m p l o y e r p a y s i n full t h e b a c k wages. Id. . . at 1 3 5 4 . U n d e r t h e o t h e r m e t h o d , a n e m p l o y e e w h o b r i n g s a p r i v a t e a c t i o n f o r b a c k w a g e s u n d e r t h e F L S A m a y " p r e s e n t t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a p r o p o s e d s e t t l e m e n t , [and] t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t m a y e n t e r a
stipulatl~d j u d g r n e n t a f t e r s c r u t i n i z i n g t h e s e t t l e m e n t f o r fairness."
Id., citing, inter alia, Schulte, Inc.,
Gangi, 3 2 8 U . S . 108, 113 n . 8 (1946). See also Yue Zhou v; Wang's Rest., 2 0 0 7 U.s. D i s t . L E X I S
6 0 6 8 3 a t * 1 ( N . D . C a l . A u g . 8, 2 0 0 7 ) . I n r e v i e w i n g a p r i v a t e F L S A s e t t l e m e n t , t h e c o u r t ' s o b l i g a t i o n i s n o t t o a c t as c a r e t a k e r b u t as gatekeeper; it m u s t e n s u r e t h a t private F L S A settlements a r e a p p r o p r i a t e g i v e n the F L S A ' s p u r p o s e s and t h a t s u c h s e t t l e m e n t s d o n o t u n d e r m i n e t h e A c t ' s p u r p o s e s . T h u s , " [ i ] n r e v i e w i n g the
OPINION & O R D E R
2
{JVA}
fairness o f s u c h a settlement, a c o u r t m u s t determine w h e t h e r t h e s e t t l e m e n t is a fair a n d reasonable resolution o f a b o n a fide dispute." Yue Zhou, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS60683 a t * 1. " I f a settlement i n an e m p l o y e e F L S A s u i t . . . r e f l e c t [ s ] a r e a s o n a b l e c o m p r o m i s e o v e r i s s u e s , s u c h a s F L S A c o v e r a g e o r c o m p u t a t i o n o f b a c k w a g e s , t h a t are a c t u a l l y i n d i s p u t e , " t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t is p e r m i t t e d to approve the s e t t l e m e n t " i n o r d e r to p r o m o t e the p o l i c y o f encouraging s e t t l e m e n t o f litigation."
L y n n ' s F o o d Stores. Inc., 679 F. 2 d a t 1354.
U p o n r e v i e w o f t h e confidential settlement document, consideration o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e b a s i s for t h e p a r t i e s ' s e t t l e m e n t p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t d u r i n g a c o n f e r e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e s e t t l e m e n t , a n d i n l i g h t o f t h e facts a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d , t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e t e r m s o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f this l i t i g a t i o n a r e f a i r a n d r e f l e c t a r e a s o n a b l e c o m p r o m i s e o f P l a i n t i f f s ' F L S A claim. T h e a m o u n t s to b e p a i d e a c h p l a i n t i f f to resolve their individual claims is a reasonable amount considering allegations o f u n p a i d w a g e s and overtime. F u r t h e n n o r e , t h e a g r e e m e n t t h a t r e s u l t e d in t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s i s n o t t h e p r o d u c t o f f r a u d o r o v e r r e a c h i n g by, o r c o l l u s i o n b e t w e e n , t h e n e g o t i a t i n g p a r t i e s , a n d t h e s e t t l e m e n t , t a k e n a s a whole, i s fair, reasonable, and adequate. See, e.g., O f f i c e r s f o r Justicev. Civil Service Commission, 688 F . 2 d 6 1 5 , 6 2 5 ( 9 t h Cir. 1982), c:ert denied, 459 U.S. 1217 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ( p r o p o s e d s e t t l e m e n t t o b e e v a l u a t e d b y t h e " u n i v e r s a l l y a p p l i e d s t a n d a r d " o f w h e t h e r i t i s " f u n d a m e n t a l l y fair, a d e q u a t e a n d reasonable''). Finally, i n approving t h e p a r t i e s ' settlement agreement, t h e Court b a l a n c e d relevant factors, i n c l u d i n g t h e s t r e n g t h o f P l a i n t i f f s ' c a s e ; t h e r i s k , e x p e n s e , c o m p l e x i t y , a n d l i k e l y d u r a t i o n o f further litigation; the extent to w h i c h t h e parties h a d c o m p l e t e d d i s c o v e r y a n d litigated discovery issues; t h e stage b f t h e proceedings; t h e c a s e ' s p r o c e d u r a l posture, the availability o f remedies to o t h e r employees; a n d t h e experience a n d views o f counsel. See, e.g., Officers f o r Justice v. C i v i l
OPINION & O R D E R
3
{JVA}
Service Commission, 688 F. 2 d at 625. Therefore, t h e C o u r t approves t h e settlement.
A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e court: 1. D i s m i s s e s w i t h prejudice Plaintiffs' individual c l a i m s a g a i n s t D e f e n d a n t and without c o s t s o r fees t o a n y p a r t y ; a n d 2. D i s m i s s e s w i t h o u t prejudice t h e allegations b r o u g h t u n d e r 2 9 U.S.C. §216(b) o f t h e F L S A a n d u n d e r O r e g o n R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 2 3 , w i t h o u t c o s t s o r f e e s t o a n y party. IT IS S O O R D E R E D . D a t e d this 9 t h d a y o f January, 2009.
U n i t e d States M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e
OPINION & O R D E R
4
{NA}
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
