Hanshaw v. Veterans & Medicaid Planning Group, PLLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER directing that, on or before August 7, 2018, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant shall meet and confer in person in a good faith effort to settle all pending issues, including attorneys' fees and costs; denying 22 motion for discovery; granting in part and denying in part 23 Motion for clarification. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 7/10/2018. (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
ALANA HANSHAW, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:17-cv-410-Oc-CEMPRL

VETERANS & MEDICAID PLANNING
GROUP, PLLC and ERIC MILLHORN
Defendants.

ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to commence discovery (Doc.
22), and Defendant’s motion for clarification of scheduling order (Doc. 23), as well as Plaintiffs’
unilaterally filed Case Management Report (Doc. 21). Based upon a review of the docket in this
case, it appears that, in their Joint Report Regarding Settlement (Doc. 17) filed on March 16, 2018,
the parties initially requested a settlement conference before the United States Magistrate Judge
but, apparently, did not follow up with that request or file a motion to schedule the requested
settlement conference. Then, on May 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Report Regarding
Settlement (Doc. 18) stating that the parties had not made any further progress toward settlement
and Plaintiff would immediately file a case management report. On July 6, 2018, Plaintiff
unilaterally filed a case management report (Doc. 21), as well as a motion for leave to commence
discovery (Doc. 22). In response, Defendant filed a motion for clarification of the scheduling order
(Doc. 23), seeking clarification in view of the then pending motion to dismiss.
In the meantime, the Court entered an Order dismissing the Complaint (Doc. 24), and

allowing Plaintiff until July 24, 2014 within which to file an Amended Complaint. In light of these
recent developments and the parties’ previous filings, it thus appears that the parties would benefit
from renewed settlement discussions, even if only to explore whether further settlement
discussions would be useful.
Accordingly, it is ordered that:
1.

On or before August 7, 2018, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant shall meet and

confer in person in a good faith effort to settle all pending issues, including attorneys’ fees and
costs. 1 The parties, including a representative of each corporate party with full settlement
authority, shall be available by telephone during the conference to consider and approve any
settlement negotiated by counsel. Counsel shall have full authority to settle, and shall set aside
sufficient time for a thorough, detailed, and meaningful conference that is calculated to fully
resolve the case by agreement.
2.

By August 21, 2018, after the settlement conference, counsel shall jointly file a

Report Regarding Settlement that notifies the Court whether: 1.) the parties have settled the case;
2.) the parties have not settled the case but wish to continue settlement discussions for a specific
period of time; 3.) the parties wish to engage in a formal mediation conference before a specific
mediator on or before a specific date; 4.) either party requests a settlement conference before the
United States Magistrate Judge who upon the consent of the parties shall have the authority to
approve the settlement as a 'fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute" over FLSA issues
without additional filings made by the parties. See Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679

1

In the case of an individual party who is not represented by counsel, the individual shall comply
with the provisions of this Order.
-2-

F.2d 1350, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 1982); or 5.) the parties have exhausted all settlement efforts and
will immediately file a Case Management Report2 signed by counsel for all parties.
3.

In the event the parties request a settlement conference before the United States

Magistrate Judge, they must file an appropriate motion stating their request.
4.

The parties may consent to the conduct of all further proceedings in this case by the

United States Magistrate Judge (consent form attached to Doc. 13). Absent consent, the Magistrate
Judge shall prepare a report and recommendation as to whether any settlement is a 'fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute' over FLSA issues. See Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v.
United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 1982).
5.

Until the parties file the Case Management Report, all discovery in this case is

STAYED, except as provided in this Order.
6.

In the event that no settlement is reached pursuant to these procedures, and this

Court later grants a motion permitting notice to be sent to similarly situated individuals advising
them of their right to opt-in to this action, the limitations period for any person receiving notice
shall be tolled during the period from the date of this Order until the parties file a Case Management
Report lifting the stay on these proceedings.
7.

Should the parties settle the dispute at any later time, they shall immediately advise

the Court as required by Local Rule 3.08(a) and promptly submit a joint motion to approve the
settlement.
8.

Due to the volume of cases based on the FLSA, the Court expects strict adherence

to these deadlines. Exceptions will be granted only for compelling reasons. Failure to comply may

2

CMR forms are available online at http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov, then select Judicial
Information, District Judges, and, under the appropriate judge’s name, Case & Trial Management Forms.
-3-

result in the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to the dismissal of the case and the
striking of pleadings.
9.

Either party, for good cause shown, may move to alter this schedule should the

circumstances so warrant.
10.

Plaintiff’s unilaterally filed a case management report (Doc. 21) is hereby

STRICKEN, but shall remain as filed. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to commence discovery (Doc.
22) is DENIED, and Defendant’s motion for clarification of the scheduling order (Doc. 23), is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part to the extent explained in this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on July 10, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-4-