Miranda v. Del-Air Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDERED that the parties' Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, with Prejudice (Doc. 20) is REJECTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to strike the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, with Prejudice (id.) from the docket. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 3/27/2015. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
RICARDO SANCHEZ MIRANDA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:14-cv-1870-Orl-37KRS

DEL-AIR HEATING, AIR
CONDITIONING &
REFRIGERATION, INC.; and
ROBERT DELLO RUSSO,
Defendants.
ORDER
On March 13, 2015, the parties to this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)
unpaid-overtime action attempted to stipulate to its dismissal with prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (See Doc. 20.) The parties provide no
explanation of the circumstances surrounding the stipulation other than noting that
“neither Plaintiff nor his counsel are receiving any monetary consideration from
Defendants”—a superfluous detail unless some other form of consideration changed
hands. (See id. (emphasis added).) Upon consideration, the Court finds that the
stipulation is due to be rejected.
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), parties are not permitted to stipulate to the dismissal of an
action if doing so would run contrary to “any applicable federal statute.” Compromising
wage claims without court approval runs contrary to the FLSA. See Lynn's Food Stores,
Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352–54 (11th Cir. 1982). If follows
then that Rule 41(a)(1)(A) does not permit parties to stipulate to the dismissal of an FLSA
action if doing so would compromise a wage claim without court approval. See, e.g., Dees

v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1247 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (rejecting a Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal of an FLSA claim for failure to obtain judicial approval of the
parties’ settlement agreement).
Here, the parties seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s FLSA wage claim with prejudice
(Doc. 20), meaning that Plaintiff would be compromising the claim unless one of two
things happened after the initiation of this action: (1) Plaintiff received full monetary
compensation for the claim without relinquishing anything else of value, obviating the
need for judicial scrutiny, see Dees, 706 F. Supp. 2d at 1239–40; or (2) Plaintiff
determined that the claim was not viable for some reason—such as a lack of FLSA
coverage, see Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1298
(11th Cir. 2011)—and thus the claim had no value to compromise. The parties do not
suggest that either of those events occurred in this case. (See Doc. 20.)
Because the Court cannot determine from the parties’ stipulation whether Plaintiff
has compromised a viable FLSA claim, the stipulation is due to be rejected. See Phu
Thanh Tran v. New Generation Fusion Rest. Grp., No. 6:14-cv-572-Orl-40DAB, 2015 WL
1125102, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2015) (striking a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation which
implied that the parties had settled an FLSA claim but did not “provide enough information
for the [c]ourt to determine that the settlement was fair”). Under the circumstances, the
parties have at least four options moving forward: (1) if Plaintiff has not compromised his
FLSA claim—meaning that he has either been fully compensated, see Dees, 706 F. Supp.
2d at 1239–40 (discussing “full” compensation), or he has determined that the claim is
not viable—then the parties can explain as much in a renewed stipulation of dismissal
with prejudice; (2) if Plaintiff has compromised his FLSA claim, then the parties can file a

2

joint motion for a Lynn’s Food Stores settlement approval, see 679 F.2d at 1352–53; (3)
the parties can stipulate to a dismissal without prejudice, leaving Plaintiff’s FLSA claim
viable, as any settlement agreement is unenforceable; or (4) the parties can proceed with
this litigation pursuant to the Court’s FLSA Scheduling Order (Doc. 19).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the parties’ Joint
Stipulation of Dismissal, with Prejudice (Doc. 20) is REJECTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED
to strike the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, with Prejudice (id.) from the docket.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on March 27, 2015.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

3