Edgardo Seminiano v. Xyris Enterprise, Inc., 602 F. App'x 682

Plaintiff Edgardo Seminiano sued Xyris Enterprise, Inc. under the FLSA and California Labor Code for unpaid wages; district court initially entered summary judgment in his favor based on deemed admissions.
Xyris appealed; this court previously reversed and remanded, holding Bucknum did not mandate treating defense counsel’s declaration of non-receipt as automatically insufficient.
On remand, the district court again found Xyris’s sworn declaration insufficient because defendants were reminded multiple times about unanswered requests for admission and had circumstances indicating avoidance of discovery.
Xyris did not file a proper Rule 36(b) motion to set aside the deemed admissions; the district court declined to withdraw them.
Seminiano sought to settle and dismiss his FLSA claim via a letter assisted by a former Xyris legal assistant; the court denied dismissal because FLSA settlements require court or Secretary of Labor approval to protect employees.
The district court awarded attorneys’ fees under the FLSA; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s factual findings and discretionary rulings and affirmed judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of defense counsel's sworn declaration of non-receipt of requests for admission	Counsel’s declaration was insufficient given reminders and discovery avoidance; admissions should stand	Declaration could be sufficient under remand from prior reversal; Bucknum limits automatic finding of insufficiency	Court: factual findings that declaration was insufficient were not clearly erroneous; admissions stand
Whether Xyris properly moved to withdraw or amend deemed admissions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b)	N/A (Seminiano opposed withdrawal)	Xyris argued admissions should be set aside; did not file proper Rule 36(b) motion	Court: Xyris failed to make proper motion; even if made, withdrawal denied due to lack of good cause and prejudice to Seminiano
Validity of dismissal/settlement of FLSA claims without formal approval	Seminiano sought dismissal via letter (with assistance from former Xyris legal assistant)	Xyris implied settlement/dismissal was acceptable	Court: FLSA settlements require court or Secretary of Labor approval; dismissal denied because settlement occurred outside adversarial context and lacked proper safeguards
Award of attorneys’ fees under the FLSA	Seminiano sought fees	Xyris opposed	Court: district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees; affirmed

In re Bucknum, 951 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1991) (addressing treatment of counsel declarations about discovery receipt)
Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard for clear error review of district court factual findings)
Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rule 36(b) withdrawal requires motion)
In re Carney, 258 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2001) (deemed admissions can be withdrawn only by motion under Rule 36(b))
Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2002) (consideration of prejudice in Rule 36(b) decisions)
Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc., 723 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2013) (FLSA settlements require approval by Secretary of Labor or district court)
Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) (FLSA settlement approval protects against unfair waivers)
Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945) (employees cannot waive FLSA protections informally)
Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108 (1946) (same principle regarding protections for wage claims)
Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004) (standards for awarding attorneys’ fees under FLSA)