John Doe et al v. C&C Agricultural Farms, LLC et al

Filing 70

ORDER granting 68 the Plaintiff Jane Does' Unopposed Motion for Approval of Amended Confidential Settlement Agreement and the settlement agreement is hereby APPROVED. The case is DISMISSED with Prejudice as to the Settlement Defendants, C & C Agricultural Farms, LLC., Ernesto Ruben Cordero, Jr., and Carlos Rodiguez. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and terminate the Settlement Defendants, C & C Agricultural Farms, LLC., Ernesto Ruben Cordero, Jr., and Carlos Rodiguez. The Court will maintain jurisdiction over the Settlement Defendants until the final payment under the Settlement Agreement. Otherwise, the Court declines to accept jurisdiction over the settlement. The Clerk of tthe Court shall file the Public Terms and Conditions attached as Exhibit A to the Confidential Settlement Agreement on the Court's docket sheet.The Case remains open as to the Defendant, Reyes Tapia-Ortiz. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/2/2015. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JANE DOE, 1 and 2
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-206-FtM-38DNF

C&C AGRICULTURAL FARMS, LLC,
ERNESTO RUBEN CORDERO, JR.,
REYES TAPIA-ORTIZ and CARLOS
A. RODRIGUEZ,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff, Jane Does' Unopposed Motion
to Approve Confidential Amended Settlement Agreement (Doc. #68) filed under seal on
May 29, 2015. This case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 29
U.S.C. § 201 et. seq. The Plaintiff and the Settlement Defendants, C & C Agricultural
Farms, LLC., Ernesto Ruben Cordero, Jr., and Carlos Rodiguez have reached a
settlement agreement and seek court approval of that agreement.
In Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-1355 (11th Cir.
1982), the Eleventh Circuit explained that claims for back wages under the FLSA may
only be settled or compromised when the Department of Labor supervises the payment

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web
sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court
accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink
ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

of back wages or when the district court enters a stipulated judgment “after scrutinizing
the settlement for fairness.” There are two ways for a claim under the FLSA to be settled
or compromised. Id. at 1352-53. The first is under 29 U.S.C. § 216(c), providing for the
Secretary of Labor to supervise the payments of unpaid wages owed to employees. Id.
at 1353. The second is under 29 U.S.C. §216(b), when an action is brought by employees
against their employer to recover back wages. Id. When the employees file suit, the
proposed settlement must be presented to the district court for the district court review
and determination that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Id. at 1353-54.
The Eleventh Circuit found settlements to be permissible when the lawsuit is
brought by employees under the FLSA for back wages because the lawsuit,
[p]rovides some assurance of an adversarial context. The
employees are likely to be represented by an attorney who
can protect their rights under the statute. Thus, when the
parties submit a settlement to the court for approval, the
settlement is more likely to reflect a reasonable compromise
of disputed issues than a mere waiver of statutory rights
brought about by an employer’s overreaching. If a settlement
in an employee FLSA suit does reflect a reasonable
compromise over issues, such as FLSA coverage or
computation of back wages that are actually in dispute; we
allow the district court to approve the settlement in order to
promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.
Id. at 1354.
The Doe Plaintiffs have agreed to accept the Settlement Defendants, C & C
Agricultural Farms, LLC., Ernesto Ruben Cordero, Jr., and Carlos Rodiguez’s offer for
back wages and an equal sum in liquidated damages as a full and fair settlement of their
FLSA claims. Although the settlement was made with compromise, the Parties agree that
the Plaintiffs have been offered a fair and reasonable settlement, for all the work
performed on Defendants’ behalf. Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Robert T. Wright, Jr. of the

law firm Strock, Strock & Lavan LLP informed the Court that the firm took the case pro
bono, so no attorney’s fees were negotiated as part of the Plaintiff’s settlement.
Having thoroughly reviewed the settlement documentation, the Court concludes
that the Settlement Agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide FLSA
dispute. The Court finds that this case should be dismissed with prejudice as to the
Settlement Defendants, C & C Agricultural Farms, LLC., Ernesto Ruben Cordero, Jr., and
Carlos Rodiguez. No settlement was reached with the Defendant, Reyes Tapia-Ortiz and
the case remains pending against him.
Further, the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Defendants agree that Exhibit A attached
to the Confidential Amended Settlement agreement will be published on the Court’s
docket sheet. The Court will therefore, direct the clerk to file Exhibit A on the Court’s
docket sheet.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
The Plaintiff Jane Does’ Unopposed Motion for Approval of Amended Confidential
Settlement Agreement (Doc. #58) is GRANTED and the settlement agreement is hereby
APPROVED.
1. The case is DISMISSED with Prejudice as to the Settlement Defendants, C
& C Agricultural Farms, LLC., Ernesto Ruben Cordero, Jr., and Carlos
Rodiguez.
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and
terminate the Settlement Defendants, C & C Agricultural Farms, LLC.,
Ernesto Ruben Cordero, Jr., and Carlos Rodiguez.

3. The Court will maintain jurisdiction over the Settlement Defendants until the
final payment under the Settlement Agreement.

Otherwise, the Court

declines to accept jurisdiction over the settlement.
4. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Public Terms and Conditions attached
as Exhibit A to the Confidential Settlement Agreement on the Court’s
docket sheet.
5. The Case remains open as to the Defendant, Reyes Tapia-Ortiz.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 1st day of June, 2015.

Copies: All Parties of Record