Goss et al v. Southern Construction Group, LLC

Filing 26

ORDER granting 25 Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement. This action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 4/11/2014. (tgw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RONALD F. GOSS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SOUTHERN CONSTRUCTION
GROUP, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION 13-0566-WS-B

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ amended motion for
settlement approval. (Doc. 25). The Court has conducted the review required by
Lynn’s Food Stores v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982), and
finds that the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute
over FLSA provisions. The Court has also conducted the review of ancillary
provisions required by Crabtree v. Volkert, Inc., 2013 WL 593500 (S.D. Ala.
2013), and finds that the confidentiality clause, release, and attorney’s fees (which
fees were negotiated separately from the plaintiffs’ payments and only after the
defendant extended its make-whole offer) pass muster.
Accordingly, and for the additional reasons set forth in the amended motion
for settlement approval and exhibits thereto, the motion is granted. This action is
dismissed with prejudice. Judgment shall be entered accordingly by separate
order.1

1

By previous order, the Court disapproved the parties’ proposed stipulated
judgment, on the grounds that it stated only that the defendant would make payments as
set forth in the settlement agreement, this generalized language in apparent contravention
of Rules 54(a) and 58(a), Lynn’s Food Stores, and the public interest in assuring that
employees’ wages are fair. (Doc. 24). Such a judgment would also risk a judicial
retention of jurisdiction to police breaches of the settlement agreement, see Kokkonen v.

DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of April, 2014.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994), an obligation the
Court has no intention of undertaking. Despite these objections, the parties have resubmitted, without explanation or justification, a proposed judgment identical to the
original version. The Court declines to enter the proposed judgment and will instead
enter judgment in the standard form.
2