Mickelson v. City of Encinitas
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the parties' joint motion for approval of an FLSA settlement agreement and identified a potential overbreadth issue regarding the scope of the release. The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on whether the release of state law claims is permissible given that the complaint alleged only FLSA violations.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering supplemental briefing on the scope of the release in the proposed settlement“The Court orders the parties to submit supplemental briefing no later than March 8, 2023.” | agree with court The court correctly identified a significant legal issue: the proposed settlement releases claims under California law and tort/contract theories, while the underlying complaint only alleged FLSA violations. Citing persuasive authority from within the Ninth Circuit (and one outside), the court noted that FLSA settlements should generally be limited to the claims asserted. Requesting briefing is a standard and appropriate procedural mechanism to resolve this ambiguity before ruling on the motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the discrepancy between the scope of the claims in the complaint (FLSA only) and the scope of the release (FLSA, California law, tort, contract). It cites relevant district court cases that support the proposition that FLSA settlements should not release unasserted state law claims. By ordering briefing rather than denying the motion outright, the court allows the parties to address the issue, which is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES MICKELSON, on behalf of Case No. 22-cv-0487-BAS-BLM himself and other similarly situated 12 individuals, ORDER REQUESTING 13 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON Plaintiff, JOINT MOTION FOR 14 v. SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 15 (ECF No. 25) CITY OF ENCINITAS, 16 Defendant.
17 18 19 Presently before the Court is the parties Joint Motion to approve a Fair Labor 20 Standards Act (“FLSA”) Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 25.) Courts must evaluate a 21 series of factors to approve FLSA settlements, including the scope of the release in the 22 agreement. In this case, Class Members agree to release Defendant from “any and all wage- 23 and-hour and overtime pay-related claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, California 24 law, or tort or contract theories, which accrued or could have accrued through the Effective 25 Date of this Agreement, and that were or could have been asserted in the Action.” (Ex. 1 26 to Wilson Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 25.) The Complaint, however, alleges only violations of the 27 FLSA. 28 1 The Court requests the parties submit supplemental briefing on the issue of the scope 2 the release. The Court notes some California district courts have limited FLSA 3 || settlement releases to the scope of the claims in the Complaint. See Daniels v. Aeropostale 4 || West, Inc., No. C 12-05755 WHA, 2014 WL 2215708, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2014) 5 ||(‘Counsel were authorized to settle only the conditionally-certified FLSA claim, but the 6 || proposed release would go far beyond the FLSA claim.”); Trout v. Meggitt-USA Servs., 7 No. 216-cv-07520-ODW-AJW, 2018 WL 1870388, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2018) 8 (declining to approve a FLSA settlement in part because “[a]greeing to these terms would 9 ||bar a member of the collective action from pursing state law claims, for which there is a 10 || possibility of large recovery”); Ferreri v. Bask Tech., Inc., No. 15-cv-1899-CAB-MDD, 11 2016 WL 6833927, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2016) (“[B]ecause the release goes far beyond 12 ||the FLSA claims asserted in this lawsuit, the settlement is not fair and reasonable.”); see 13 ||also Jones v. H&J Restaurants, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-105-TBR, 2020 WL 6877577, at *1 14 || (W.D. Ky. Nov. 23, 2020) (“[T]he Court found that the release provisions in the settlement 15 ||}agreement were overbroad, primarily because the agreement included a release of state law 16 claims even though the agreement was a purported settlement of FLSA claims only.”). 17 The Court orders the parties to submit supplemental briefing no later than March 8, 18 2023. The supplemental briefing must not exceed three pages. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 /\ yy 21 || DATED: March 1, 2023 asf dg □ ashaa 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28