govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_24-cv-00870-1

1 
24-cv-0870-L-DEB 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
ERIC WILLIAM OLIVERIO-STILL, 
et al., 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
AVMAC LLC, 
Defendant. 

 
ORDER DENYING NAMED 
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 
APPROVAL OF FLSA 
COLLECTIVE ACTION 
SETTLEMENT 
 
[ECF No. 27] 
 
 
 
 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Eric William Oliverio-Still’s (“Named 
Plaintiff”) unopposed motion to approve the settlement of wages and hours claims he 
asserts under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) on his own behalf and on behalf of 
those similarly situated. (ECF No. 27.) The Court decides the matter on the papers 
submitted without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated below, 
the motion is denied. 
Named Plaintiff filed this action as a putative FLSA opt-in collective action under 
29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of himself and other employees similarly situated. He 
claims that while he worked for Defendant AVMAC LLC as a non-exempt employee, 
Case 3:24-cv-00870-L-DEB Document 29 Filed 06/01/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4
 
 2 
24-cv-0870-L-DEB 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Defendant underpaid his wages by failing to include all forms of remuneration, including 
cash in lieu of fringe benefits, into the regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime, sick 
time, and premium wages. (ECF No. 12, “Compl.”) He also claims he was not paid for 
all the hours worked. 
 Title 29 Section 216(b) “gives employees the right to bring a private cause of 
action on their own behalf and on behalf of ‘other employees similarly situated’ for 
specified violations of the FLSA.” Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 
69 (2013).1 A suit brought on behalf of other employees is known as a “collective 
action.” Id. at 69; Hoffman-LaRoche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 169 (1989). 
[T]he collective action mechanism is … tailored specifically to vindicating 
federal labor rights. The FLSA is a remedial statute with broad worker-
protective aims. The collective action mechanism is a means of serving 
these aims. 
 
 
Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2018). 
 Named Plaintiff entered into a settlement with Defendant of all FLSA claims 
alleged in this action. (ECF No. 27-2, Ferraro Decl. Ex. 1, Collective Action Settlement 
Agreement (“Settlement”).) “FLSA claims may not be settled without approval of either 
the Secretary of Labor or a district court.” Seminiano v. Xyris Enterprise, Inc., 602 Fed. 
App’x 602 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc., 723 F.3d 1304, 1306 (11th 
Cir. 2013)). Approval is required in light of the FLSA’s worker-protective aims and 
requires “scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Nall, 723 F.3d at 1306; see also id. at 
1307 (discussing Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945).) 
 The Settlement includes a provision permitting modification of its terms by 
agreement of counsel. (Settlement ¶ 10.7.) Because settlement of FLSA claims requires 
/ / / / / 
 
1 Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, citations, footnotes, ellipses, and 
brackets are omitted from citations. 
Case 3:24-cv-00870-L-DEB Document 29 Filed 06/01/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4
 
 3 
24-cv-0870-L-DEB 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
approval of either the Secretary of Labor or a district court, the Court cannot approve an 
agreement which circumvents this requirement. 
 In the alternative, the proposed agreement would settle this action as a collective 
action, including 58 other employees who opted into this action. (Settlement ¶ 1.6.) 
“[P]articipation in the collective action is a statutory ‘right’ held equally and individually 
by each party plaintiff, whether originally appearing in the complaint or later opting in.” 
Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1108. By filing a consent to join, aggrieved workers become 
parties plaintiff to the collective action. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). After a plaintiff opts into a 
collective action, there is no distinction between the original and opt-in plaintiffs. 
Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1108. “The FLSA leaves no doubt that every plaintiff who opts 
into the collective action has party status.” Id. Accordingly, a collective action is 
a kind of mass action, in which aggrieved workers act as a collective of 
individual plaintiffs with individual cases—capitalizing on efficiencies of 
scale, but without necessarily permitting a specific, named representative to 
control the litigation, except as the workers may separately so agree. 
 
 
Id. at 1105 (emph. in orig.). 
 Fifty-eight individuals have opted into this action (ECF No. 26, “Notice of Consent 
to Join”) and became party plaintiffs. However, only Named Plaintiff signed the 
Settlement. (Settlement at 12.) No evidence has been provided to show that all Plaintiffs 
agree to the Settlement, and the consent-to-join forms do not stipulate that Named 
Plaintiff controls this action. (See Notice of Consent to Join.) If the Settlement is 
approved, judgment will be entered and this action dismissed as to all Plaintiffs, 
including any who do not agree. (Settlement ¶¶ 1.16, 1.20, 1.29, 5.2, 10.15.) This 
outcome would be contrary to the individual party status of each opt-in Plaintiff. Named 
Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied. 
 Finally, the proposed $10,000 Named Plaintiff award in addition to his pro rata 
share of the net settlement (Settlement ¶¶ 1.28, 2.2.1) appears excessive, as this action 
has settled before formal discovery. Named Plaintiff has not been deposed, nor has he 
Case 3:24-cv-00870-L-DEB Document 29 Filed 06/01/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4
 
 4 
24-cv-0870-L-DEB 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
been called upon to sign any affidavits, except for the declaration in support of his 
proposed award. (ECF No. 27-3.) 
 For the foregoing reasons, Named Plaintiff’s motion for approval of FLSA 
collective action settlement is denied without prejudice. Any renewed motion for 
settlement approval must by accompanied with a redlined copy of the proposed 
settlement showing all changes to the Settlement filed at ECF No. 27-2. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 1, 2026 
 
 
 
Case 3:24-cv-00870-L-DEB Document 29 Filed 06/01/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight