Neri et al v. Architectural Concrete and Designs LLC et al
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER- The court finds the proposed settlement, embodied in a consent judgment (Doc 35 ), to be fair, reasonable, and equitable to the plaintiffs and the defendants. The proposed settlement is APPROVED and a separate consent judgment will be entered. Signed by Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on 10/4/18. (MRR, )
FILED
2018 Oct-04 PM 04:30
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
PERFECTO NERI, LUIS NERI,
And MARIANO PAZ,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE
AND DESIGNS, LLC; JEFFCO
CONCRETE CONTRACTORS,
INC.; and DAVID GLASCOW,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 7:18-cv-0213-TMP
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
The above-styled cause came before the court on the Joint Motion For Entry
of Stipulated Order and Consent Judgment (Doc. 35), in which the parties jointly
move for approval of a proposed settlement of this Fair Labors Standards Act case
pursuant to Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 679 F.2d
1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982). The court has carefully considered the joint motion,
the proposed Consent Judgment annexed to it, and the declarations of the three
plaintiffs indicating their understanding of and agreement with the proposed
settlement. The parties have previously consented to the exercise of dispositive
jurisdiction by the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The court finds the joint motion for approval of the proposed settlement is due to
be GRANTED.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), an overtime or minimumwage claim can be settled in only two ways: one involving payment of the claimed
overtime under the supervision of the Secretary of Labor or, the second, pursuant
to “a stipulated judgment entered by a court which has determined that a settlement
proposed by an employer and employees ... is a fair and reasonable resolution of a
bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Silva v. Miller, 307 F. App'x 349, 351
(11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. U.S. Dept. of
Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir.1982)). In the instant case, through counsel
for all parties, a compromise settlement has been reached, taking into account
disagreements about the hours worked and the uncertainty of litigation. Under the
settlement, plaintiff Perfecto Neri will be paid the total sum of $8,544.00 in three
installment payments.
This amount represents a calculation of approximately
$208.00 per week of unpaid overtime compensation for 35 weeks. Similarly,
plaintiff Luis Neri would be paid a gross sum of $2,500.00, representing
approximately $125.00 per week for 11 weeks, and plaintiff Paz would be paid
$2,500.00 for overtime at the rate of $125.00 per week for 11 weeks. Plaintiffs
counsel would be paid a separate amount of $11,456.00 for fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses. This payment to counsel does not cause any
2
reduction of the amounts owed to the plaintiffs for unpaid overtime compensation.
These are reasonable compromises based upon disputed liability and facts related
to the amount of hours worked by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have been fully
advised of the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement, and are in
agreement with it. A consent judgment will be entered to protect the plaintiffs’
interest in receiving the installment payments contemplated. The installments call
for the plaintiffs to receive full payment by no later than November 30, 2018.
There are no other “side deals” of terms and conditions not expressed in the
consent judgment itself.
The court finds the proposed settlement, embodied in a consent judgment, to
be fair, reasonable, and equitable to the plaintiffs and the defendants.
The
proposed settlement is APPROVED and a separate consent judgment will be
entered.
DONE this 4th day of October, 2018.
_______________________________
T. MICHAEL PUTNAM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?