From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brooks v. Alro Steel Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Feb 5, 2015
Case No. 8:14-cv-1364-T-33TBM (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 8:14-cv-1364-T-33TBM

02-05-2015

JERRY D. BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. ALRO STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant.


ORDER

This cause comes before the Court in consideration of the parties' Joint Motion to Approve FLSA Settlement and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims in Counts II and III with Prejudice (Doc. # 30), filed on February 3, 2015. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the Motion.

I. Background

Plaintiff Jerry D. Brooks initiated this action on June 9, 2014, against Defendant Alro Steel Corporation. (See Doc. # 1). Thereafter, on December 9, 2014, Brooks filed an Amended Complaint setting forth the following Counts: (I) violation of ERISA, (II) Recovery of Unpaid Wages, (III) Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (Overtime and Compensation), and (IV) ADA Discrimination and Retaliation. (Doc. # 25). Specifically, as it relates to Counts II and III, Brooks contends that:

In many work weeks during the relevant period, Plaintiff worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week for Defendant. In those work weeks, Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation by Defendant. . . .
(Id. at 4-5).

Defendant filed its Answer to Brooks' Amended Complaint on December 22, 2014. (Doc. # 26). Subsequently, the parties mediated this action on February 2, 2015, which resulted in the parties reaching a settlement of all claims. (Doc. ## 27, 29). Thereafter, on February 3, 2015, the parties filed the present Motion requesting approval of the FLSA settlement agreement reached and dismissal of Counts II and III with prejudice. (Doc. # 30).

According to the parties' Report on Status of Mediation, "the parties anticipate filing a stipulation and joint motion for dismissal of the remaining claims [Counts I and IV] . . . at the appropriate time." (See Doc. # 29).

II. Analysis

In Counts II and III, Brooks alleges that Defendant violated the terms of the FLSA. (Doc. # 25). Accordingly, any settlement reached between the parties is subject to judicial scrutiny. See Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982).

The parties have reached a settlement wherein it is agreed that Brooks will receive $3,600, of which $1,800 represents "Plaintiff's alleged wage claims," and $1,800 for liquidated damages. (See Doc. # 30-1). Brooks' counsel will receive $2,500 for attorneys' fees and costs. (See Id.). The parties stipulate that "the amount represents relief in an amount a reasonable jury would award in this matter." (Doc. # 30 at 2). Further, the parties' submit that "payment of Plaintiff's counsel's fees and litigation costs was negotiated separately and apart from the amount payable to Plaintiff so as not to compromise Plaintiff's recovery." (Id.).

Upon adequate review and consideration, the Court approves the settlement reached by the parties in an effort to amicably resolve this case. The settlement is fair on its face and represents a reasonable compromise of the parties' dispute.

In Bonetti, the court explained: "if the parties submit a proposed FLSA settlement that, (1) constitutes a compromise of the plaintiff's claims, (2) makes a full and adequate disclosure of the terms of settlement, including the factors and reasons considered in reaching same and justifying the compromise of the plaintiff's claims, and (3) represents that the plaintiff's attorneys' fee was agreed upon separately and without regard to the amount paid to the plaintiff, then, unless the settlement does not appear reasonable on its face or there is reason to believe that the plaintiff's recovery was adversely affected by the amount of fees paid to his attorney, the Court will approve the settlement without separately considering the reasonableness of the fee to be paid to plaintiff's counsel." Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., 715 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1228 (M.D. Fla. 2009).
--------

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The parties' Joint Motion to Approve FLSA Settlement and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims in Counts II and III with Prejudice (Doc. # 30) is GRANTED. (2) The parties' settlement is approved. (3) Counts II and III are dismissed with prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 5th day of February, 2015.

/s/_________

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Counsel of Record


Summaries of

Brooks v. Alro Steel Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Feb 5, 2015
Case No. 8:14-cv-1364-T-33TBM (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2015)
Case details for

Brooks v. Alro Steel Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JERRY D. BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. ALRO STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Date published: Feb 5, 2015

Citations

Case No. 8:14-cv-1364-T-33TBM (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2015)