Felts v. Ark Potomac Corporation, Civil Action No. 2021-0656

Plaintiffs (including Rebecca Felts) sued Ark Potomac d/b/a Sequoia under the FLSA and DCMWA for unpaid minimum wages and overtime.
Parties negotiated a settlement and moved for court approval; the agreement provided 100% of backpay for a three-year period plus liquidated damages structured as a 10% add-on (not full FLSA liquidated damages) and a discounted attorneys’ fee recovery.
Felts contacted the court ex parte expressing objections, later claimed she signed reluctantly after counsel threatened to withdraw, and alleged calculation errors in her settlement amount.
Plaintiffs’ counsel moved to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences/conflict of interest; the Court granted withdrawal and ordered Felts to either seek new counsel or set forth objections in writing; Felts proceeded pro se and filed objections.
The Court reviewed the settlement for a bona fide dispute and overall fairness, considered counsels’ negotiations, discovery, and the settlement formula, and evaluated the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and expenses.
The Court approved the settlement over Felts’s objections, concluding the deal was the product of arm’s-length bargaining, reasonably reflected the parties’ relative positions, and contained reasonable fee arrangements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement resolves a bona fide dispute	Felts did not dispute the existence of a dispute but contested fairness and calculations	Parties agreed a bona fide dispute existed between plaintiffs and defendant	Court: Settlement resolves a bona fide dispute; review proceeds
Whether the settlement is fair and reasonable	Felts argued she signed reluctantly, liquidated damages undervalued, and wage data miscalculated	Parties argued arm's-length bargaining, informal discovery informed valuation, and settlement approximates plaintiffs’ recovery	Court: Settlement is fair — negotiated in good faith, reasonable relative to strengths/weaknesses, close to plaintiffs’ asserted damages
Whether counsel’s withdrawal was proper	Felts opposed withdrawal and contested counsel’s conduct	Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted irreconcilable differences and conflict of interest	Court: Withdrawal was appropriate under Local Civil Rule due to conflict/irreconcilable differences
Whether attorneys’ fees and expenses are reasonable	Felts implicitly challenged the deal but did not present a counter on fees	Plaintiffs argued hours and lodestar were reasonable and fees in settlement were a substantial discount	Court: Fees and expenses are reasonable; settlement limits review to monetary compromise terms

Stephens v. Farmers Restaurant Grp., 329 F.R.D. 476 (D.D.C. 2019) (describing standards for court review of FLSA settlements)
Carrillo v. Dandan Inc., 51 F. Supp. 3d 124 (D.D.C. 2014) (presumption of fairness for settlements and factors to evaluate employer overreaching)