Espinoza v. Wastequip Manufacturing Company, LLC ( 2020 )

1 Rafael Nendel-Flores, Esq. SBN: 223358 Guillermo Tello, Esq. SBN: 277896 2 Yesi Lagunas, Esq. SBN 316008 CLARK HILL LLP 3 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 4 Telephone: (213) 891-9100 Facsimile: (213) 488-1178 5 rnendelflores@clarkhill.com gtello@clarkhill.com 6 ylagunas@clarkhill.com 7 Attorneys for Defendant WASTEQUIP MANUFACTURING 8 COMPANY, LLC 9 Ben Rothman, Esq. SBN 265472 10 LAW OFFICES OF BEN ROTHMAN 10100 Venice Blvd., 11 Culver City, CA 90232 Telephone: (310) 717-0539 12 Facsimile: (310) 919-3777 ben@santamonicainjurylawyer.com 13 Attorney for Plaintiff 14 JAVIER ESPINOZA 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA- FRESNO DIVISION 18 19 JAVIER ESPINOZA, an individual, Case No. 1:20-CV-00211 JLT 20 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND JOINT STIPULATION AND 21 vs. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF ALL CLAIMS; 22 WASTEQUIP MANUFACTURING [PROPOSED] ORDER COMPANY, LLC, an Ohio limited 23 liability company; and DOES 1 to 50, (Doc. 14) inclusive, 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 1 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff JAVIER ESPINOZA (“Plaintiff”) and 3 Defendant WASTEQUIP MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC (“Defendant”) 4 (collectively, “the Parties”) have reached a settlement in the above-entitled action. A 5 formal settlement agreement and general release has been negotiated and executed by, 6 and among, the Parties. Upon the Parties settlement of this entire action, the Parties 7 hereby submit this Joint Stipulation for Approval of Settlement and Motion for 8 Dismissal with Prejudice. 9 JOINT STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 10 AND MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 11 Plaintiff and Defendant pursuant to Local Rule 160 and Federal Rule of Civil 12 Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby and through their respective counsel, request that 13 the court approve the Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Agreement”) and 14 dismiss with prejudice the entire action. 15 A. Court Approval of the Proposed Settlement of Fair Labor Standards 16 Act Claim is Proper 17 Plaintiff’s Complaint, in its Fifth Cause of Action, asserts a claim under the Fair 18 Labor Standards Act for alleged Failure to Pay Overtime Wages as required by 29 19 U.S.C. §§ 207(a) and 216(b). Public policy strongly favors the settlement of disputes. 20 Still, Rule 41(a)(a)(A)(ii) requires the approval of the district court or of the 21 Department of Labor for stipulated dismissals settling Fair Labor Standards Act 22 (“FLSA”) claims with prejudice. Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 23 199, 206 (2nd Cir. 2015). As such, the Parties seek this Court’s approval. 24 B. Court Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Release Is Proper 25 The Court need only determine that a “settlement reflects a reasonable 26 compromise over issues that are actually in dispute,” in order to approve a settlement 27 of FLSA claims. McKeen-Chaplin v. Franklin Am. Mortg. Co., No. C. 10-5243 SBA, 28 2012 WL 6629608, *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2012). This standard is specifically 1 designed to “promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.” Id. A 2 settlement may be approved if, under the totality of the circumstances, the settlement's 3 overall effect vindicates, rather than frustrates, the purposes of the FLSA. See, Dees 4 v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1247 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (explaining that “the 5 district court should not become complicit in any scheme or mechanism designed to 6 confine or frustrate…realization of FLSA rights.”). 7 As discussed in detail herein, Plaintiff’s FLSA claim is individual in nature, not 8 class or collective, and was disputed by Defendant from the outset. As such, the terms 9 of the Agreement reached by the Parties after conducting independent investigations 10 and discovery into the merits of, or lack thereof, Plaintiff’s claims, is indeed a 11 reasonable compromise of all the issues “actually in dispute.” McKeen-Chaplin, supra. 12 C. Procedural History 13 1. On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant, 14 titled Javier Espinoza v. Manufacturing Company, LLC Case No. BCV-19-102665 in 15 the Kern County Superior Court, seeking damages for (1) Failure to Provide Meal 16 Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (4) 17 Failure to Pay Overtime Wages 29 USC §§ 3017(a) & 216(b); (5) Failure to Provide 18 Accurate Wage Statements; (6) Waiting Time Penalties; (7) Failure to Produce Payroll 19 Records; (8) Failure to Produce Personnel Records; and (9) Unfair Business Practice. 20 2. On November 17, 2019 Defendant answered the Complaint in the Kern 21 County Superior Court and therein denied all claims and allegations and asserted 22 special and affirmative defenses to all claims and allegations. 23 3. On February 10, 2020, Defendant moved to remove this matter to federal 24 court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and Plaintiff did not object. On February 25 11, 2020, the Kern County Superior Court vacated the state case. 26 4. As of February 11, 2020, the matter is under the jurisdiction of the United 27 States District Court Eastern District Court of California, before Magistrate Judge 28 Jennifer L. Thurston. 1 5. Throughout the pendency of this case, both while pending in State court 2 and after removal to this Court, the Parties have engaged in discovery and in their 3 respective independent investigations. Specifically, Plaintiff propounded three 4 separate sets of discovery and Defendant propounded two set of discovery, with both 5 Parties exchanging documents and meeting and conferring over the Parties’ responses. 6 6. Counsel for the Parties have also discussed the merits of Plaintiff’s claims 7 and Defendant’s defenses at length. 8 7. On August 28, 2020, after two months of settlement discussions, the 9 Parties reached an agreement to settle this matter. 10 D. The Parties Request To Dismiss The Entire Action With Prejudice 11 Plaintiff initially brought this Complaint against Defendant, alleging wage and 12 hour causes of action, including an action under the FLSA. With regards to the FLSA 13 claim, Plaintiff alleged that, while Defendant employed him as a forklift driver, 14 Defendant failed to pay him overtime wages. Plaintiff alleged that as a result, he was 15 entitled to overtime pay with interest, liquidated damages, costs and attorney’s fees. 16 The Parties have entered into the Agreement to resolve all claims asserted in 17 this matter. The Parties and their counsel recognize and acknowledge the expense of 18 continued lengthy proceedings to prosecute and defend this action, the uncertainty and 19 risk of any litigation, as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation. 20 In support of the request for approval of the Agreement, Plaintiff’s counsel 21 submits that he and Plaintiff are satisfied that Plaintiff will be reasonably compensated 22 under the terms of the Agreement for all causes of action asserted against Defendant. 23 Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledge that: (a) Plaintiff fully understand the 24 Agreement; (b) the Agreement specifically applies to a knowing and voluntary release 25 of the relevant and specified rights and claims Plaintiff may have against Defendant; 26 and (c) Plaintiff consulted with his counsel before signing the Agreement and has 27 entered into it knowingly and voluntarily. A copy of the Agreement is attached as 28 Exhibit A. 1.00 UV VVUECLI VLl bVUULIICEI tw PHM LVivoray Payee vviv 1 E. Conclusion 2 The Parties agree that the terms reflected in the Agreement are mutually 3 || satisfactory and represent an adequate, fair, and reasonable resolution of this lawsuit. 4||The Parties therefore respectfully request the Court approve the Agreement and 5 || dismiss this entire action with prejudice. 6 DATED: September 29 , 2020 CLARK HILL LLP 7 8 _ 5 By, _ Cone Rafael G. Nendel-Flores 10 Guillermo Tello Yesi Lagunas 11 Attorneys for Defendant WASTEQUIP MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC 13 4 DATED: September 23, 2020 BEN ROTHMAN 15 16 By} eS Ben Rothman 17 Attorney for Plainuff 18 JAVIER ESPINOZA 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TOVINIT TIDITT ATIOWIT! COVR ADDRAWAT “CVC CLTTT CAACNIT ACiRQCoCndAcNnitT ANTITY □□□□□□□□□□ 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 Upon review of the Joint Stipulation for Approval of Settlement Agreement and 3 Request for Dismissal With Prejudice, and after reviewing the settlement agreement 4 (Doc. 14-1), the Court finds that the settlement terms represent a fair and equitable 5 resolution of this matter and that the Plaintiff is receiving a reasonable and satisfactory 6 recovery of his claims, and payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. 7 The Court ORDERS that the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and Release is 8 APPROVED. This action, and the claims asserted herein by Plaintiff, is hereby 9 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: October 8, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28