Vogenberger v. ATC Fitness Cape Coral, LLC et al
Filing
52
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 42 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement/Judgment and for Entry of Default Final Judgment. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/21/2016. (AMB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
KEVIN VOGENBERGER, on his
own behalf and all similarly
situated individuals,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:14-cv-436-FtM-29CM
ATC FITNESS CAPE CORAL, LLC,
ATC FITNESS FORT MYERS, LLC,
ATC FITNESS FORT MYERS 2,
LLC, and 3F MANAGEMENT, LLC,
a
Florida
profit
corporation,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Motion to
Enforce Settlement Agreement/Judgment and for Entry of Default
Final Judgment (Doc. #42) filed on April 22, 2016.
On May 6,
2016, Defendants filed a Motion in Opposition and Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement/Judgment and
for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc. #43), to which plaintiff filed
a Reply (Doc. #47) on June 20, 2016.
The Court heard oral argument
on December 19, 2016.
I.
On
August
6,
2014,
plaintiff
Kevin
Vogenberger
(“Vogenberger”) brought a claim against defendants ATC Fitness
Cape Coral, LLC, ATC Fitness Fort Myers, LLC, ATC Fitness Fort
Myers 2, LLC, and 3F Management, LLC, for failure to pay overtime
and
minimum
(“FLSA”).
wages
pursuant
(Doc. #1.)
to
the
Fair
Labor
Standards
Following the initiation of the suit, four
additional individuals filed notices of consent to join.
##9, 10, 22, 29.)
Act
(Docs.
On January 22, 2015, Jennifer Holt withdrew her
Notice of Consent to Join. (Doc. #35.)
The parties filed their initial Joint Motion for Approval of
Settlement (Doc. #34) on January 15, 2015, which was denied without
prejudice due to the failure to indicate that the attorneys’ fees
were negotiated separately and due to the failure to offer a basis
for the incentive payment to Vogenberger (Doc. #36).
On April 1,
2015, the parties filed a Second Joint Motion for Approval of
Settlement.
(Doc. #37.)
On April 15, 2015, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Joint
Motion be granted and the settlement approved as a fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under the FLSA.
#38.)
(Doc.
This Court issued an Opinion and Order on April 24, 2015
adopting the Report and Recommendation and granting the parties’
Second Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement.
settlement
agreement
required
defendants
to
(Doc. #40.)
make
an
The
initial
payment of $55,000 within ten (10) days of the Court’s approval,
and then pay the remaining amount in twelve (12) equal monthly
installments.
(Doc. #37-2.)
- 2 -
On April 22, 2016, plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforce the
Settlement
Judgment.
Agreement/Judgment
(Doc. #42.)
and
for
Entry
of
Default
Final
Defendant filed a Motion in Opposition and
Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement
(Doc. #43) on May 6, 2016, to which plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc.
#47) on June 20, 2016.
On December 19, 2016, the Court held an
evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.
During the hearing, counsel for defendants argued that the Court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Motion to Enforce the
Settlement
Agreement/Judgment.
Neither
party
presented
any
evidence at the evidentiary hearing.
II.
Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction and
are “empowered to hear only those cases within the judicial power
of the United States as defined by Article III of the Constitution
or otherwise authorized by Congress.”
Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d
1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
“When a district
court's dismissal order either incorporates the terms of the
settlement agreement or expressly retains jurisdiction to enforce
the settlement, the agreement functions as a consent decree that
the
district
court
has
jurisdiction
to
enforce.”
Disability
Advocates & Counseling Grp., Inc. v. E.M. Kendall Realty, Inc.,
366 F. App’x 123, 125 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 380-82 (1994)).
- 3 -
In Kokkonen,
when
declining
to
enforce
a
settlement
agreement
absent
an
independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, the
Supreme Court stated:
The situation would be quite different if the parties'
obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement
agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal—
either by separate provision (such as a provision
“retaining jurisdiction” over the settlement agreement)
or by incorporating the terms of the settlement
agreement in the order. In that event, a breach of the
agreement would be a violation of the order, and
ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement would
therefore exist. That, however, was not the case here.
The judge's mere awareness and approval of the terms of
the settlement agreement do not suffice to make them
part of his order.
511 U.S. at 381 (emphasis added).
The parties have not presented, nor can the Court find, any
independent basis for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction
over
plaintiff’s
Motion
to
Enforce
Settlement
Agreement.
Plaintiffs assert that the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce
the
settlement
agreement
because
“the
Court
entered
Judgment
incorporating the terms of the settlement and directing the parties
to distribute the Class Notice.” (Doc. #42, ¶ 2.)
Here, the Court did not expressly retain jurisdiction.
Doc. #40.)
(See
While the Court did approve the terms of the settlement
agreement and include procedures relating to the distribution of
the proposed Class Notice in its Order, the Court did not otherwise
make the settlement agreement part of its Order.
(Id.)
The Court
finds that there is no independent basis for the exercise of
- 4 -
subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce and
that the Court did not retain jurisdiction, either expressly or by
incorporation of the settlement agreement, over the settlement
agreement.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement/Judgment and for Entry of Default Final Judgment is
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement/Judgment
and for Entry of Default Final Judgment (Doc. #42) is dismissed
with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this __21st__ day of
December, 2016.
Copies:
Counsel of Record
- 5 -
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?