Dicomo v. KJIMS Development Company, Inc. et al
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER denying 18 Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement; rejecting basis for dismissal but adopting 19 Report and Recommendations to the extent dismissal recommended. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the case with prejudice with each party to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs, and close the file. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 11/14/2016. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DANIEL
DICOMO,
individual,
an
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:16-cv-327-FtM-99CM
KJIMS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
INC., a Florida corporation
and
TONY
SINGH,
an
individual,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #19), filed
October 24, 2016, recommending that the Joint Motion for Approval
of Settlement Agreement (Doc. #18) be denied and the case dismissed
for lack subject-matter jurisdiction.
No objections have been
filed and the time to do so has expired.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings
and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982),
cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983).
In the absence of specific
objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review
factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9
(11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations.
636(b)(1)(C).
28 U.S.C. §
The district judge reviews legal conclusions de
novo, even in the absence of an objection.
See Cooper-Houston v.
Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro
Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993),
aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
The Magistrate Judge found that subject matter jurisdiction
over the case was premised on the federal question presented by
plaintiff’s FLSA claim.
The Magistrate Judge determined that
since plaintiff’s Affidavit reflects that there is no bona fide
dispute over the FLSA claim, there is no settlement to scrutinize
and the case was devoid of a controversy over which the Court could
exercise subject matter jurisdiction in the first place.
(See
Doc. #19.)
In the motion, the parties state that the resolution of this
case did not involve any payment to plaintiff, and did not involve
payment of any attorney’s fees or costs to plaintiff’s counsel.
(Doc. #18, ¶ 7.)
In fact, the settlement did not compromise the
FLSA claim, but rather sought to resolve an unrelated matter
subject to arbitration.
(Id., p. 4.)
Attached as Exhibit B to
the parties’ Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of All Claims
(Doc. #18-1) is the Affidavit of Daniel Dicomo stating that he has
been “more than fully compensated by KJIMS and that this settlement
- 2 -
does not constitute a compromise of any disputed claim.”
The
Affidavit further provides that plaintiff was paid in excess of
the minimum wage for services performed, and that he is “receiving
significant value” from KJIMS by entering a global settlement with
regard to an unrelated matter whereby payment will be made by
plaintiff on behalf of Tarpon Court to KJIMS.
(Id.)
The parties
do not clearly state that there was never a viable FLSA claim, or
that that plaintiff was actually exempt from its provisions.
However, since there was no compromise in this case, the Court
finds no review of the settlement is required under Lynn’s Food
Stores, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352
(11th Cir. 1982).
In fact, the Court finds that the parties may
dismiss the case in its entirety pursuant to the Joint Stipulation
for Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. #16) without further action
from the Court as it is unconditional and self-executing.
See
Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.
2012).
After conducting an independent examination of the file and
upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court
rejects the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge to
the extent that it found a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The fact that the FLSA claim turned out to be nonmeritorious is
not relevant to whether the Court had jurisdiction over the case
itself in the first instance.
The Court does find that a dismissal
- 3 -
with
prejudice
is
appropriate,
and
that
portion
of
the
recommendation will be adopted.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.
The
Report
and
Recommendation
(Doc.
#19)
is
hereby
rejected as to the basis for dismissal but adopted as to the
recommendation to dismiss with prejudice.
2.
The parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement
Agreement (Doc. #18) is DENIED.
3.
The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the case with
prejudice with each party to bear their own attorneys’ fees and
costs, terminate all deadlines and motions, and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of November, 2016.
Copies:
Hon. Carol Mirando
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented parties
- 4 -
14th
day
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?