Opinion
Case No. 6:11-cv-594-Orl-28GJK
09-08-2011
VINNE PERSON, Plaintiff, v. ORLANDO SUN RESORT & SPA, LLC., et. al., Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion:
MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. No. 23)
FILED: September 2, 2011
THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be GRANTED.
Plaintiff moves for the Court to approve the settlement agreement (the "Agreement") of Plaintiff's claims reached between Plaintiff and Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and to dismiss the case with prejudice (the "Motion"). Doc. Nos. 23, 23-1.
Pursuant to Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982) judicial review and approval of this settlement is necessary to give it final and binding effect. As the Eleventh Circuit held in Lynn's:
[t]here are only two ways in which back wage claims arising under the FLSA can be settled or compromised by employees. First, under section 216(c), the Secretary of Labor is authorized to supervise payment to employees of unpaid wages owed to them. . . . The only other route for compromise of FLSA claims is provided in the context of suits brought directly by employees against their employer under section 216(b) to recover back wages for FLSA violations. When employees bring a private action for back wages under the FLSA, and present to the district court a proposed settlement, the district court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.Id. at 1352-53. Before approving an FLSA settlement, the court must scrutinize it to determine if it is "a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute." Id. at 1354-55. If the settlement reflects a reasonable compromise over issues that are actually in dispute, the Court may approve the settlement "in order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation." Id at 1354.
In determining whether the settlement is fair and reasonable, the Court should consider the following factors:
(1) the existence of collusion behind the settlement;See Leverso v. South Trust Bank of Ala. Nat. Assoc., 18 F. 3d 1527, 1531 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1994); Hamilton v. Frito-Lay, Inc., No. 6:05-cv-1592-Orl-22JGG, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10287, at *2- 3, (M.D. Fla. January 8, 2007). The Court should be mindful of the strong presumption in favor of finding a settlement fair. Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F. 2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977).
(2) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation;
(3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed;
(4) the probability of plaintiff's success on the merits;
(5) the range of possible recovery; and
(6) the opinions of counsel.
This case involved disputed issues of FLSA coverage, which constitutes a bona fide dispute. Doc. Nos. 1, 7. The parties were represented by independent counsel who were obligated to vigorously represent their clients. Id. The parties agreed to settle Plaintiff's claims in exchange for a release of all claims for a total sum of $4,450.00, representing $2,044.42 payable to Plaintiff for overtime wages and minimum wages, and $2,405.58 to Plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and costs. Doc. No. 23-1 at 2. In the Agreement, the parties state that "[t]he parties agree that the Plaintiff is being fully compensated and is not compromising her [FLSA] claim. . . ." Doc. No. 23-1 at 2. In the Motion, Plaintiff also states that the amount of attorneys' fees allocated in the Agreement was negotiated separately and apart from Plaintiff's recovery. Doc. No. 23 at 2.
Lynn Food's requires a court to determine whether a plaintiff's compromise of his or her claims is fair and reasonable. Lynn's Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354-55. According to the Agreement and the Motion, Plaintiff is receiving full compensation for Plaintiff's claims. Doc. Nos. 23 at 1-2; 23-1 at 2. Therefore, Plaintiff's claim has not been compromised and the Agreement is necessarily a "fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions." Lynn's Food, 679 F.2d at 1354. Thus, the Court "need not scrutinize the settlement further to consider whether the payment to [plaintiff's] attorney, the hourly rate claimed by [plaintiff's] attorney, or the costs claimed by [plaintiff's] attorney are reasonable." See Granger v. Water Sports Management, Inc., Case No. 6:08-cv-1283-Orl-31KRS, 2009 WL 1396286 at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 18, 2009). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the proposed Agreement in exchange for Plaintiff's release of all claims and dismissal of the action with prejudice to be fair and reasonable.
THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the Court:
1. GRANT the Motion (Doc. No. 23) only to the extent that the Court finds the parties' settlement is fair and reasonable;
2. DENY all pending motions as moot; and
3. Enter an order dismissing the case with prejudice and direct the Clerk to close the case;
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report within fourteen (14) days from the date of its filing shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings on appeal.
Recommended in Orlando, Florida on September 8, 2011.
GREGORY J.KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Presiding District Judge
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (all decisions from the Fifth Circuit prior to October 1, 1981 are binding on the Eleventh Circuit).