Summary
finding FLSA settlement agreement fair and reasonable where plaintiff did not receive liquidated damages under the agreement because there was a genuine dispute as to whether plaintiff was entitled to such damages
Summary of this case from Fox v. Servs., Supports & Sols., Inc.Opinion
Case No. 3:13-cv-87-J-34JBT
01-08-2014
JENNETTE PATTERSON, on her own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACADEMY FIRE PROTECTION, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 38; Report), entered on December 6, 2013, recommending that the Joint Motion for Approval of Revised Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 36; Motion) be granted, the Revised Settlement Agreement be approved, the Amended Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 30) be denied as moot, and this case dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 13. On December 9, 2013, the parties filed a notice advising the Court that they have no objections to the Report. See Joint Notice of No Objection to Report and Recommendation Re: Joint Motion for Approval of Revised Settlement Agreement [D.E. 36] (Dkt. No. 39).
The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
The Court has conducted an independent examination of the record in this case and a de novo review of the legal conclusions. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (FLSA), seeking recovery of unpaid overtime. See Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). Thereafter, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, which resulted in a resolution of the issues and claims raised in this case. See Motion (Dkt. No. 36). Upon review of the record, including the Report, Motion, and Revised Settlement Agreement, the undersigned concludes that the settlement represents a "reasonable and fair" resolution of Plaintiff's FLSA claims. Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt Judge Toomey's Report.
Upon review of the Report, the Court observes that Mr. Shavitz' hourly rate appears to be excessive and greater than this Court might ordinarily approve for a routine FLSA case. Nevertheless, in the context of this particular settlement, the Court will approve the parties' agreement. The Court's acceptance of this settlement should not be regarded as, or represented to another Court, as an approval of Mr. Shavitz' requested hourly rate in FLSA cases.
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 38) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. The Joint Motion for Approval of Revised Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 36) is GRANTED.
3. The Amended Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 30) is DENIED as MOOT.
4. For purposes of satisfying the FLSA, the Revised Settlement Agreement is APPROVED.
5. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions or deadlines as moot and close this file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 8th day of January, 2014.
__________
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge
ja Copies to: Counsel of Record