From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cramer v. Equinix, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 8, 2013
CASE NO. C 12-05605 KAW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. C 12-05605 KAW

03-08-2013

YVONNE CRAMER, Plaintiff, v. EQUINIX, INC., Defendant.

MARY C. DOLLARHIDE (SB# 138441) HANNAH J. COLE (SB# 253381) PAUL HASTINGS LLP Attorneys for Defendant EQUINIX, INC. ALAN ADELMAN (SB# 170860) LAW OFFICES OF ALAN ADELMAN Attorney for Plaintiff YVONNE CRAMER


MARY C. DOLLARHIDE (SB# 138441)
HANNAH J. COLE (SB# 253381)
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
EQUINIX, INC.
ALAN ADELMAN (SB# 170860)
LAW OFFICES OF ALAN ADELMAN
Attorney for Plaintiff
YVONNE CRAMER

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND DISMISSING INSTANT ACTION

WITH PREJUDICE

WHEREAS, on November 1, 2012, Plaintiff Yvonne Cramer filed the instant action against Defendant Equinix, Inc., alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLS A"), the California Labor Code and Code of Regulations, and California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., by failing to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant desire to amicably resolve Plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant, after fair, informed, and impartial negotiations, have reached a settlement that contains a release of Plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit;

WHEREAS, the FLS A provides that a release of FLS A claims is not binding without judicial or U.S. Department of Labor supervision, see 29 U.S.C. § 216(c), Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982), McKeen-Chaplin v. Franklin Am. Mort. Co., No. C 10-5243 SBA, 2012 WL 6629608, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2012);

WHEREAS, the parties hereby agree and represent that: (a) Plaintiff and Defendant were represented by able counsel; (b) Plaintiff entered into the settlement voluntarily; (c) the settlement and release represent a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide wage dispute; and (d) the terms of the settlement are embodied in a detailed agreement that Plaintiff and Defendant have executed;

WHEREAS, the parties' settlement agreement will not go into effect until and unless the Court approves the settlement;

WHEREAS, the parties are prepared to submit for the Court's confidential review a copy of their settlement agreement, at such time and in such manner as the Court may deem appropriate and convenient (provided that the agreement is not publicly filed or disclosed);

WHEREAS, Defendant will issue payment pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement within 15 days after the Court approves the settlement and dismisses this lawsuit with prejudice; and

WHEREAS, the Plaintiff and Defendant have each authorized her or its respective undersigned counsel to enter into this Stipulation on her or its behalf;

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that, in accordance with the requirements of the FLS A and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant may and should be dismissed with prejudice.

ALAN ADELMAN

LAW OFFICES OF ALAN ADELMAN

By: _______________

ALAN ADELMAN

Attorney for Plaintiff

YVONNE CRAMER

MARY C. DOLLARHIDE

HANNAH J. COLE

PAUL HASTINGS LLP

By: _______________

MARY C. DOLLARHIDE

Attorneys for Defendant

EQUINIX, INC.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the agreement to settle and resolve Plaintiff's claims in the above-captioned lawsuit is APPROVED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant in the above-captioned lawsuit are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without costs as against any party. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant issue payment to Plaintiff, pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement, within 15 days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Cramer v. Equinix, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 8, 2013
CASE NO. C 12-05605 KAW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013)
Case details for

Cramer v. Equinix, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:YVONNE CRAMER, Plaintiff, v. EQUINIX, INC., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 8, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. C 12-05605 KAW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013)