Erling v. American Grille with Sushi LLC et al
Filing
76
OPINION AND ORDER denying 71 Motion for Approval of Settlement without prejudice to filing an amended revised motion or a notice that the parties are ready for trial on or before July 30, 2019; terminating 74 Report and Recommendations; adopting 75 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/18/2019. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
TODD ERLING, on behalf of
himself and others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No:
2:17-cv-350-FtM-29MRM
AMERICAN GRILLE WITH SUSHI
LLC,
a
Florida
profit
corporation and CHRIS K.
WHITAKER, individually,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the
Magistrate Judge’s Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. #75),
filed July 2, 2019, recommending that the Revised Joint Motion for
Approval of FLSA Settlement and to Dismiss the Case With Prejudice
(Doc. #71) be denied without prejudice to electing an option to
file a second revised joint motion, or to advise the Court that
the parties wish to proceed with trial.
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.
636(b)(1);
28 U.S.C. §
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).
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 determined that he could not recommend
approval because the parties continue to fail to explain the
discrepancy between plaintiff’s monetary demands in the pleadings
and in answers to court interrogatories compared to the lower
settlement amount, the allocation to unpaid wages appears to imply
that
no
liquidated
damages
are
included,
the
mutual
general
releases are unsupported or otherwise unexplained, and the parties
fail to explain why the Court should retain jurisdiction over
enforcement for an indefinite period of time.
After conducting
an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration
of the Report and Recommendation, the Court accepts the Report and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge.
once more.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
- 2 -
The motion will be denied
1.
The
Order
(Doc.
#74),
docketed
as
a
Report
and
Recommendation, is terminated as moot.
2.
The Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. #75) is
hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein.
3.
The parties' Revised Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA
Settlement and to Dismiss the Case With Prejudice (Doc. #71) is
DENIED without prejudice to filing an amended revised joint motion
that addresses the issues raised, or a notice that the parties
will proceed with trial, on or before July 30, 2019.
The Court
is not inclined to entertain another motion unless all issues are
adequately addressed.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of July, 2019.
Copies:
Hon. Mac R. McCoy
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented parties
- 3 -
18th
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?