CHAPPELL v. COPPER VIEW ANIMAL HOSPITAL

Case No. 1:17-mc-52.

ROBIN CHAPPELL, Plaintiff, v. COPPER VIEW ANIMAL HOSPITAL, Defendant.

United States District Court, D. Utah, Northern Division.

Editors Note
Cause: Civil Miscellaneous Case
Nature of Suit: 710 Labor: Fair Standards
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robin Chappell, Petitioner, represented by Gregory Brent Smith , GREG SMITH AND ASSOCIATES.


MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

CLARK WADDOUPS, District Judge.

The parties have filed a Joint Action/Motion for the Court to Approve a Proposed FLSA Settlement, (Dkt. No. 2). The court reviewed the authorities cited in the Motion and ORDERS the parties to file further briefing to assist the court in resolving the Motion.

As an initial matter, the parties have commenced this action without any statement of the court's jurisdiction over a miscellaneous action to approve a private, out-of-court FLSA settlement.

Additionally, according to Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982), before a court can approve a proposed FLSA settlement, the court must find that the parties assert a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions and that the proposed settlement is fair and equitable to all parties concerned. Id. at 1355. The parties have not included sufficient information or context to permit the court to analyze the fairness of this proposed settlement agreement. For example, the district court in Peterson v. Mortg. Sources, Corp., No. CIV.A. 08-2660-KHV, 2011 WL 3793963, at *2 n.5 (D. Kan. Aug. 25, 2011), refused to approve a proposed FLSA settlement without information about, inter alia, "(1) defendant's business; (2) the type of work performed by plaintiffs; (3) the facts underlying plaintiffs' reasons for justifying their claims; (4) defendant's reasons for disputing plaintiffs' claims; (5) the relative strength and weaknesses of plaintiffs' claims; (6) the relative strength and weaknesses of defendant's defenses; (7) whether the parties dispute the computation of wages owed; (8) each party's estimate of the number of hours worked and the applicable wage; or (9) the maximum amount of recovery to which plaintiffs claim they would be entitled if they successfully proved their claims." The court cannot resolve this matter without at least the above information identified in Peterson, as well as any other information the parties believe relevant to the fairness of this settlement agreement.

Thus, the parties must file supplemental briefing addressing (1) the court's jurisdiction over this action and (2) all facts and circumstances relevant to show the parties have a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions and to allow the court to scrutinize the settlement for fairness. The parties shall submit their supplemental briefing by May 15, 2017.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases