Crable v. Premier Baths, Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER adopting 38 Report and Recommendations.; denying 37 Motion for Settlement. On or before Monday, November 6, 2017, the parties are DIRECTED to file a renewed motion for approval of a proposed FLSA settlement agreement that remedies the deficiencies identified in the R&R. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 10/24/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
CHARLES CRABLE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:16-cv-1825-Orl-37TBS

PREMIER BATHS, INC.; and BILL
KELLY,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
ORDER
Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants alleging, among other things, that
they failed to pay him minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”). (Doc. 1.) Defendant Bill Kelly (“Mr. Kelly”) answered the
Amended Complaint (Doc. 23), and Defendant Premier Baths, Inc. (“Premier”) has yet to
appear. On October 5, 2017, Plaintiff and Mr. Kelly jointly moved for approval of a
settlement agreement pursuant to Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States ex rel. United
States Department of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982). (Doc. 37, pp. 1–4 (“Approval
Motion”); see also id. at 6–12 (“Agreement”).) On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Thomas B. Smith recommends that the Court deny the Approval Motion and reject the
Agreement. (Doc. 38 (“R&R”).)
In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Smith concludes that the Agreement—the totality of
which contains only mutual releases between Plaintiff and Mr. Kelly—raised more
questions than it answered. (See Doc. 38, pp. 3–6.) In particular, the Court cannot perform
-1-

a fairness analysis because the Agreement: (1) provides an insufficient explanation for
why Plaintiff is not receiving a monetary award; (2) proposes releases that are overly
broad, providing no basis to assess their value; (3) purports to create jurisdiction in this
Court by stipulation; and (4) attempts to settle all of Plaintiff’s claims even though
Premier, an alleged jointly-liable defendant, is not a party to it. (Id.)
The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time for doing so has now passed.
In the absence of objections, the Court has reviewed the R&R only for clear error. See
Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:12-cv-557-T-27EAJ, 2016 WL 355490, at *1
(M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016); see also Marcort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784
(11th Cir. 2006). Finding no clear error, the R&R is due to be adopted in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 38) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order.

2.

The Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law (Doc. 37, pp. 1–4) is DENIED.

3.

The Settlement Agreement (Doc. 37, pp. 6–12) is REJECTED.

4.

On or before Monday, November 6, 2017, the parties are DIRECTED to file
a renewed motion for approval of a proposed FLSA settlement agreement
that remedies the deficiencies identified in the R&R.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on October 24, 2017.

-2-

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-