Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cameron v. Goodtime Towne Tavern, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

October 30, 2019

BRIANNA CAMERON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant,
v.
GOODTIME TOWNE TAVERN, INC. Defendant/Counter Claimant.

          ORDER

          R. Brooke Jackson United States District Judge

         Plaintiff moves to enforce two settlement agreements. Defendant concedes the motion in part and opposes it in part. Defense counsel also moves to withdraw. This order addresses those motions.

         BACKGROUND

         Brianna Cameron worked for the Goodtime Towne Tavern, Inc. (GTTI) as an exotic dancer. In her Complaint she asserted, purportedly on behalf of herself and other similarly situated dancers, that she was not paid minimum wages or overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. She also asserted claims under the Colorado Minimum Wage Act and for unjust enrichment. ECF No. 1.

         Despite her claim to represent herself and others, Ms. Cameron did not seek certification of a collective action or a class action. She did, however, file a “Consent to Join” on behalf of another individual, Georgina Santich. ECF No. 21. Whether that was a proper means of adding an additional party plaintiff to the case was not challenged by the defendant.

         The parties settled this case on terms set forth in two written agreements. ECF No. 28 (for Ms. Cameron) and No. 28-1 (for Ms. Santich). Among other terms, these agreements required payments of $6, 483.33 to Ms. Cameron and $5, 933.33 to Ms. Santich no later than July 15, 2019. Id. The settlement amounts were not paid as agreed, and to the Court's knowledge, have never been paid.

         In a status conference held on August 8, 2019, the defendant's owner, Stan Pettengill, both in person and through his attorney, represented that GTTI did not have funds with which to make the settlement payments, but that Mr. Pettengill was in the process of attempting to sell the tavern and would make the payments out of the sales proceeds. Shortly thereafter Ms. Cameron filed the pending motion to enforce the settlement agreement(s) against GTTI and against Mr. Pettengill individually. She asserted that Mr. Pettengill was obligated because he had “ratified” the settlement agreement. ECF No. 27 at 3-4.

         GTTI, through counsel, responded that it did not oppose the motion to the extent that sought to impose liability on GTTI but did oppose it to the extent that it sought to impose liability on Mr. Pettengill. ECF No. 29 at 1. GTTI argues that Mr. Pettengill was not a party to the litigation and did not ratify the settlement in any capacity other than as an authorized signatory for GTTI. Id. at 1-2.

         Shortly after filing the response defendant's counsel moved to withdraw, stating that he is not a collections attorney, and that there was additional good cause for withdrawal that he could not disclose in the motion. ECF No. 30 at 1. The motion indicates that counsel had conferred with plaintiff's counsel who indicated that plaintiff opposed the motion. However, no opposition has been filed. Nor have GTTI or Mr. Pettengill responded to the motion to withdraw.

         ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

         A. Enforceability of the Settlement Agreements.

         Neither party seems to have paid close attention to the terms of the settlement agreements, but the answers to their arguments can be found there. Preliminarily, it does not matter that Mr. Pettengill was not a party to the case. The parties to the case resolved the case by entering into two written settlement agreements. The agreements are enforceable, and they will be enforced on their express terms.

         The Cameron agreement expressly provides that it is between Brianna Cameron and her agents, etc., on the one hand, and GTTI “along with its owner (Stan Pettengill), agents, managers, employees, officers, directors, attorneys, predecessors, successors, assignees, beneficiaries, and affiliated entities (collectively “RELEASEE”), all of whom may be collectively or individually referred to as the ‘parties' or a ‘party, '” on the other hand. ECF No. 28 at 1 (emphasis added). Setting aside the excessive legalese, the Court interprets this language to mean that Mr. Pettengill, among others, is a “releasee” and a party to the settlement agreement. ECF No. 28 at 1. The Santich agreement contains substantially identical language. ECF No. 28-1 at 1.

         Paragraph 1 of the Cameron agreement provides that in exchange for a complete release, “RELEASEE will cause to be paid to you and your counsel the gross total sum of Six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-Three Dollars and Thirty-Three Cents ($6483.33) (‘the Settlement Payment').” ECF No. 28 at 1. The Santich agreement is the same except that the amount is $5, 933.33. ECF No. 28-1 at 1. The agreements continue, “The Settlement Payment will be delivered to your counsel on or before July 15, 2019 so long as the following have also occurred prior to that Dated: (a) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.