Ong v. Kitsap Residences

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 21, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-05095
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 EMMANUEL ONG, Individually and on CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05095-DGE 11 behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 12 Plaintiff, COURT APPROVAL OF v. SETTLEMENT AND DIMISSAL 13 WITH PREJUDICE (DKT. NO. 17) KITSAP RESIDENCES, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Court Approval of 17 Settlement and Dismissal of Complaint with Prejudice (Dkt. No. 17). For the reasons discussed 18 herein, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to 19 voluntarily dismiss this action. 20 On February 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a collective action suit against Defendant Kitsap 21 Residences pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (Dkt. 22 No. 1.) Plaintiff has not, at present, moved for conditional class certification pursuant to 29 23 U.S.C. § 216(b). 24 1 In their joint stipulated motion, the parties ask the Court to enter an order approving their 2 settlement after scrutinizing it for fairness, in accord with Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United 3 States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 1982). (Dkt. No. 17 at 3.) The Eleventh Circuit has 4 also extended its Lynn’s Food rule to require court scrutiny of individual settlement of FLSA

5 wage claims. See Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc., 723 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 2013). The Ninth 6 Circuit has not adopted the rule articulated in Lynn’s Food, see Wilson v. Maxim Healthcare 7 Servs., Inc., No. C14-789RSL, 2017 WL 2988289, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 20, 2017), and we 8 decline to do so here. Though other courts in the circuit have adopted the Lynn’s Food rule, 9 most of these cases appear to occur in contexts where the approving court has already 10 conditionally certified a class. See, e.g., Millan v. Cascade Water Servs., Inc., No. 11 112CV01821AWIEPG, 2016 WL 3077710, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 31, 2016); Otey v. 12 Crowdflower, Inc., No. 12-CV-05524-JST, 2016 WL 304747, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016). 13 Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt the Lynn’s Food rule and therefore DENIES the 14 parties’ joint motion without prejudice. Plaintiff remains free to dismiss this case pursuant to

15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). 16 Dated this 21st day of October, 2022. 17 A 18 David G. Estudillo 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24