1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 STEPHANIE PRASAD, Case No. 17-cv-02794-VKD

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO

10 v. SEAL AND (2) GRANTING JOINT

MOTION TO APPROVE FLSA

11 PINNACLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SETTLEMENT

SERVICES, LLC,

12 Re: Dkt. Nos. 49, 50 Defendants.

13 14 Ms. Prasad filed this action, claiming that defendant misclassified its property managers as 15 exempt from overtime pay. She asserted a claim for failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor 16 Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., as well as several state law claims for wage- 17 and-hour violations and disability discrimination. The Court granted defendant’s motion to 18 compel arbitration. The parties subsequently advised that following a three-day arbitration 19 hearing, they agreed to a settlement. They now request the Court’s approval of the settlement of 20 Ms. Prasad’s individual claim under the FLSA. Dkt. Nos. 42, 43. At the Court’s request, the 21 parties submitted a status report and further briefing. Dkt. Nos. 44-46, 50. They also request that 22 the settlement agreement and portions of their briefing be filed under seal. Dkt. No. 49. The 23 matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The Court 24 grants the parties’ motions as follows: 25 The Court finds compelling reasons to grant the parties’ motion to seal the settlement 26 agreement, matters concerning the parties’ private arbitration proceedings, and portions of their 27 1 briefing disclosing either of those subjects.1 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 2 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 3 38 (2016); Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). 4 In determining whether an FLSA settlement warrants approval, “courts in this district 5 apply the Eleventh Circuit’s widely-followed standard set forth in Lynn’s Food Stores and 6 consider whether the proposed settlement constitutes a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona 7 fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Dahl v. Bay Power, Inc., No. 20-cv-07062-HSG, 2021 WL 8 2313388, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2021) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also 9 Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-55 (11th Cir. 1982). 10 Having reviewed the parties’ settlement agreement and supplemental briefing, the Court 11 finds that the settlement of Ms. Prasad’s FLSA claim is fair and reasonable. This matter presented 12 a genuine dispute whether Ms. Prasad was misclassified as an exempt employee. The record 13 indicates that by settling, each side has chosen to avoid the risk and expense of further litigation. 14 Additionally, based on the explanation and calculations presented by the parties, the settlement 15 amount received by Ms. Prasad is fair and reasonable, relative to her claimed damages, in 16 exchange for the release of her claims. See Dkt. Nos. 49-3, 49-4.2 Further, the record presented 17 demonstrates that the settlement was the result of arms-length negotiations between the parties and 18 their counsel. See Dkt. No. 49-4 ¶ 9. 19 Accordingly, the Court grants the parties’ joint request to approve their settlement, to the 20 extent the settlement includes a release of Ms. Prasad’s rights under the FLSA. Further, pursuant 21 to the parties’ agreement, this action is dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear its own 22 /// 23 /// 24 1 The parties apparently intended to, but did not, include their settlement agreement with their 25 supplemental briefing. The Court will file under seal the copy of that agreement the parties previously lodged with the Court. 26

2 The parties apparently intended to, but did not, submit a copy of the arbitrator’s interim order. 27 The Court therefore relies on Mr. Lohr’s description of the arbitrator’s rulings and findings, as set 1 attorneys’ fees and costs. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: April 6, 2022 4 5

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7 3 The parties also request dismissal without prejudice as to Ms. Prasad’s claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698, et seq. 28 However, no such claim has been asserted in this Court. Although the Court granted Ms. Prasad leave to file an amended complaint to assert a PAGA claim (Dkt. No. 39), she never did so.