Abdennour v. Summer Bay Sales & Marketing, L.C.

Filing 22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 18 Joint MOTION for approval of settlement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 1/15/2014. (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
MOHAMED ABDENNOUR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:13-cv-312-Oc-ACCPRL

SUMMER BAY SALES &
MARKETING, L.C.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement
and Dismissal with Prejudice.

(Doc. 18).

The District Judge referred this Motion to the

undersigned to determine whether the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant is a “fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute” over Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) issues.
See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 1982). (Doc.
19).
If a settlement is not one supervised by the Department of Labor, the only other route for
compromise of FLSA claims is provided in the context of suits brought directly by employees
against their employer under section 216(b) to recover back wages for FLSA violations. "When
employees bring a private action for back wages under the FLSA, and present to the district court
a proposed settlement, the district court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the

1

Error! Main Document Only.Failure to file written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations contained in this report within fourteen (14) days from the date of
its filing shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings on appeal.

settlement for fairness." Id. at 1353 (citing Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 66 S.Ct. 925,
928 n.8, 90 L.Ed. 1114).
The Eleventh Circuit has held that "[s]ettlements may be permissible in the context of a
suit brought by employees under the FLSA for back wages because initiation of the action by the
employees provides some assurance of an adversarial context." Id. at 1354. In adversarial cases:
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.
As set forth in the motion and Settlement Agreement (Doc. 21-1), the settlement provides
that Defendant will pay Plaintiff $9,182.13 (representing the full amount of unpaid overtime
allegedly due him), plus liquidated damages of $9,182.13. Defendant will also pay Plaintiff’s
counsel $5,091.00 in attorney's fees and costs. The parties represent that Plaintiff is receiving
full compensation for his claims under the FLSA; and thus, his claims have not been
compromised. In exchange for these payments, Plaintiff agrees to release Defendant from all
claims alleged in the Complaint in this action. Under these circumstances, the undersigned finds
the settlement to be reasonable. Indeed, Plaintiff is receiving the full amount to which he claims
he is entitled.
As for the amount of attorney’s fees and costs, in FLSA suits for unpaid minimum wages
or unpaid overtime wages, “[t]he court . . . shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the
plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of
the action.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). This provision has been interpreted to mean that “fee awards

-2-

[are] mandatory for prevailing plaintiffs.” Kreager v. Solomon & Flanagan, P.A., 775 F.2d
1541, 1542 (11th Cir. 1985). The “FLSA requires judicial review of the reasonableness of
counsel's legal fees to assure both that counsel is compensated adequately and that no conflict of
interest taints the amount the wronged employee recovers under a settlement agreement.” Silva
v. Miller, 307 Fed. Appx. 349, 351, 2009 WL 73164, 2 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Zegers v.
Countrywide Mortg. Ventures, LLC, 569 F.Supp. 2d 1259 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (applying lodestar
analysis in FLSA case).
Here, the settlement agreement reveals that the attorney’s fees and costs were negotiated
separately from Plaintiff’s recovery. See Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt.Co., Case No.: 6:07-cv-1335,
2009 WL 2371407 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2009). Both parties stipulate that the fees to Plaintiff’s
counsel in the amount of $5,091.00 are reasonable. Under the circumstances, the undersigned
finds that the amount of $5,091.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs appears to be reasonable.2
As such, it is respectfully recommended that the parties’ Motion (Doc. 18) be granted,
the settlement be accepted by the District Court as a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona
fide dispute” over FLSA issues, and the matter be dismissed, with prejudice.
Recommended in Ocala, Florida on January 14, 2014.

2

Error! Main Document Only.In reaching this conclusion, the Court recognizes that it
must consider the reasonableness of any award of attorneys’ fees, but it is not required to
conduct “an in depth analysis . . . unless the unreasonableness is apparent from the face of the
documents.” King v. My Online Neighborhood, Inc., No. 6:06-cv-435-Orl-22JGG, 2007 WL
737575, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2007)(quoting Perez v. Nationwide Protective Servs., Case No.
6:05-cv-328-ORL-22JGG (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2005)). As the total fee award sought in this case
is not patently unreasonable based on the history of this case and Defendants do not contest the
reasonableness of the award, the Court has not conducted an in-depth analysis of the attorneys’
fees sought. Accordingly, the award of attorneys’ fees in this action does not reflect a
determination that the hourly rate or time charged by Plaintiff’s counsel constitutes a reasonable
hourly rate in this or any applicable market.

-3-

Copies fu
urnished to:
Presiding District Jud
g
dge
Counsel of Record
sented Party
Unrepres
Courtroo Deputy
om

-4-