Haskett v. Uber Techs., Inc.

PER CURIAM

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00998-CCE-JLW) Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip David Haskett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Phillip David Haskett appeals the district court's order and judgment approving the proposed settlement agreement prepared by the parties, a collective of former and current Uber drivers, and Uber Technologies, Inc., and Rasier, LLC. This action concerned claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (2012). Haskett opted into the lawsuit, agreeing to "be bound by any adjudication or ruling of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable." On appeal, Haskett argues that he was denied notice of the proposed settlement and challenges various aspects of the settlement agreement. We affirm.

Haskett's argument that the district court erred by not notifying the members of the collective of the proposed settlement agreement is without merit. Haskett confuses this collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (2012), with a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This action only concerned claims under the FLSA. Unlike Rule 23, section 216(b) does not require a district court to notify potential claimants about a proposed settlement. See Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090, 1112 (9th Cir. 2018) ("The statutory requirements of a collective action are independent of, and unrelated to, the requirements for class action under Rule 23." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Behr v. Drake Hotel, 586 F. Supp. 427, 430 (N.D. Ill. 1984) ("29 U.S.C. § 216(b) contains no provision which prohibits or permits the sending of notice to potential claimants."). Actions under § 216 and Rule 23 "are mutually exclusive and irreconcilable." LaChapelle v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 513 F.2d 286, 289 (5th Cir. 1975).

Haskett's remaining arguments concerning the course of litigation and the settlement agreement are similarly unpersuasive. Haskett agreed to be bound by the final judgment whether favorable or unfavorable. Moreover, Haskett acknowledges that he could have commenced his own lawsuit if he did not join the collective.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order and judgment. We deny Haskett's motion for a transcript at Government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED