Huff v. Preferred Family Healthcare Incorporated

E.D. Arkansas

Huff v. Preferred Family Healthcare Incorporated

DecidedFebruary 7, 2022

Docket3:19-cv-00193

StatusUnknown

This text of Huff v. Preferred Family Healthcare Incorporated (Huff v. Preferred Family Healthcare Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huff v. Preferred Family Healthcare Incorporated, (E.D. Ark. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION RANDALL HUFF PLAINTIFFS Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al. v. CASE NO. 3:19-CV-00193-BSM PREFERRED FAMILY HEALTHCARE INC. and QUAPAW HOUSE INC. DEFENDANTS ORDER The motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 93] is granted. Upon reconsideration, the renewed joint motion for approval of settlement [Doc. No. 89] is granted. The parties have settled plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”) claims against defendants and now seek approval of the proposed settlement agreement and dismissal of the case. Because both impose the same overtime requirements, they are analyzed similarly. See Arkansas Dep’t of Veterans Affairs v. Okeke, 466 S.W.3d 399, 403 (Ark. 2015). To approve a settlement in an FLSA case, the court must ensure that the parties are not negotiating around the FLSA’s requirements and

that the settlement agreement represents a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. Cruthis v. Vision’s, 2014 WL 4092325, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 19, 2014). The parties’ proposed agreement and the entire record herein indicate the parties are not attempting to negotiate around the FLSA’s requirements, and plaintiffs’ recovery is fair

and reasonable and furthers the goals of the FLSA. Attorney’s fee in this case were calculated as part of the overall settlement pool, and therefore are “necessarily intertwined” with the amount the plaintiffs will receive. Amanda Del Toro, et al. v. Centene Management Company, LLC, No. 4:19-CV-02635-JAR, 2021 WL 1784368 (E.D. Mo. May 5, 2021); See Sandoval-Osegura v. Harvey Pallets Mgmt. Grp., LLC, No. 4:19-CV-00096-AGF, 2021 WL 2337614 (E.D. Mo. June 8, 2021) (finding Barbee did not limit settlement approval where attorney fees were calculated as part of the settlement fund). Further, given the particular circumstances of this case, the attorneys’ fees and costs are reasonable. The settlement is therefore approved and this case is dismissed with prejudice. Moreover, jurisdiction is retained for thirty days to enforce the terms of the agreement, as necessary, to vacate this order and the accompanying judgment, and to reopen the case if it is satisfactorily shown that the agreement has not been completed and further litigation is needed. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2022.

Barer UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION RANDALL HUFF PLAINTIFFS Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al. v. CASE NO. 3:19-CV-00193-BSM PREFERRED FAMILY HEALTHCARE INC. and QUAPAW HOUSE INC. DEFENDANTS ORDER The motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 93] is granted. Upon reconsideration, the renewed joint motion for approval of settlement [Doc. No. 89] is granted. The parties have settled plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”) claims against defendants and now seek approval of the proposed settlement agreement and dismissal of the case. Because both impose the same overtime requirements, they are analyzed similarly. See Arkansas Dep’t of Veterans Affairs v. Okeke, 466 S.W.3d 399, 403 (Ark. 2015). To approve a settlement in an FLSA case, the court must ensure that the parties are not negotiating around the FLSA’s requirements and

that the settlement agreement represents a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. Cruthis v. Vision’s, 2014 WL 4092325, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 19, 2014). The parties’ proposed agreement and the entire record herein indicate the parties are not attempting to negotiate around the FLSA’s requirements, and plaintiffs’ recovery is fair

and reasonable and furthers the goals of the FLSA. Attorney’s fee in this case were calculated as part of the overall settlement pool, and therefore are “necessarily intertwined” with the amount the plaintiffs will receive. Amanda Del Toro, et al. v. Centene Management Company, LLC, No. 4:19-CV-02635-JAR, 2021 WL 1784368 (E.D. Mo. May 5, 2021); See Sandoval-Osegura v. Harvey Pallets Mgmt. Grp., LLC, No. 4:19-CV-00096-AGF, 2021 WL 2337614 (E.D. Mo. June 8, 2021) (finding Barbee did not limit settlement approval where attorney fees were calculated as part of the settlement fund). Further, given the particular circumstances of this case, the attorneys’ fees and costs are reasonable. The settlement is therefore approved and this case is dismissed with prejudice. Moreover, jurisdiction is retained for thirty days to enforce the terms of the agreement, as necessary, to vacate this order and the accompanying judgment, and to reopen the case if it is satisfactorily shown that the agreement has not been completed and further litigation is needed. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2022.

Barer UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Huff v. Preferred Family Healthcare Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huff-v-preferred-family-healthcare-incorporated-ared-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack