Quiros et al. v. GCA Services Group, Inc.

Filing 66

ORDER adopting the recommended resolution set forth in the 65 Report and Recommendation; granting 56 Joint Motion to Approve Settlement. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 7/29/2011. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
JORGE QUIROS, FRANCISCO ARRIETA,
GABRIEL A. PEREZ-SANTANA, and
ANGEL E. PEREZ-SANTANA,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 5:11-cv-83-J-34MCR

GCA SERVICES GROUP, INC., a foreign
corporation,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson’s Report
and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 65; Report), entered on July 7, 2011, recommending that
the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Settlement (Dkt. No. 56) be granted, the settlement
agreements be approved, and the case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 6.
Neither party has filed an objection to the Report, and the time for doing so has now passed.
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific
objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo
review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de
novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United

States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14,
2007).
The Court has conducted an independent examination of the record in this case and
a de novo review of the legal conclusions. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (FLSA), seeking recovery of unpaid
overtime. See Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Dkt. No. 52).
Thereafter, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, which resulted in a resolution of
the issues and claims raised in this case. See Joint Motion to Approve Settlement (Dkt. No.
56). Upon review of the record, including the Report, Joint Motion to Approve Settlement,
and the Settlement Agreements, the undersigned concludes that the settlement represents
a “reasonable and fair” resolution of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims.1 Accordingly, the Court will
accept and adopt the recommended resolution set forth in Judge Richardson’s Report.
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED:
1.

The recommended resolution set forth in Magistrate Judge Monte C.

Richardson’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 65) is ADOPTED.
2.

The Joint Motion to Approve Settlement (Dkt. No. 56) is GRANTED.

3.

For purposes of satisfying the FLSA, the Settlement Agreements are

APPROVED.
4.

This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

1
The Court finds, under the circumstances of this case, that the settlement is fair and
reasonable. In so doing, the Court declines to adopt the framework set forth in Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt.
Co., 715 F.Supp.2d1222 (M.D. Fla. 2009) to the extent it suggests that this Court “will” approve a
particular settlement without separately considering the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees.

-2-

5.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions or

deadlines as moot and close this file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, this 29th day of July, 2011.

ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-