Anderson v. Lykes Cartage Company, Inc.

Filing 24

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 23 Joint MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically for Approval of Settlement Agreement filed by Daniel Anderson. It is RECOMMENDED that the Motion be GRANTED. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick on 10/17/2017. (RN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DANIEL ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-657-Orl-40DCI

LYKES CARTAGE COMPANY LLC,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the
following motion:
MOTION:

PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF
LAW FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
(Doc. 23)

FILED:

September 20, 2017

THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND.
Daniel Anderson (Plaintiff) filed the operative complaint against Lykes Cartage Company

LLC (Defendant) on May 25, 2017. Doc. 8.1 Plaintiff alleges that he worked for Defendant, a
cartage company, as a dispatcher between July 2014 and January 2016. Id. at ¶¶ 12-14. Plaintiff
alleges that he “routinely worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week as part of his regular job
duties.” Id. at ¶ 19. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knowingly failed to pay him overtime wages

1

Plaintiff also named Lykes Cartage Company, Inc. as a defendant. Doc. 8. Plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed Lykes Cartage Company, Inc. in June 2017. Doc. 16.

for all of the overtime work he performed during the relevant period. Id. at ¶¶ 20-24. Thus,
Plaintiff asserted a single claim against Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 207. Id. at 4-5.
The parties reached a settlement in September 2017. Doc. 22.
The parties filed a Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law for Approval of Settlement
Agreement (Motion) and their settlement agreement (Agreement) on September 20, 2017. Docs.
23; 23-1. The Agreement provides that Plaintiff will release his claim against Defendant, in
exchange for receiving $1,750.00 in unpaid overtime wages, and $1,750.00 in liquidated damages.
Doc. 23-1 at 3. The Agreement also provides that Plaintiff will receive $3,500.00 in attorney fees
and costs. Id. The parties represent that the attorney fees and costs were “negotiated separate and
apart from Plaintiff’s settlement and did not bear any weight on the amounts received by Plaintiff.”
Doc. 23 at 4. The parties maintain that the Agreement is fair and reasonable, and request that the
Court grant the Motion and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. Id. at 4-5.
II.

LAW.
The settlement of a claim for unpaid minimum or overtime wages under the FLSA may

become enforceable by obtaining the Court’s approval of the settlement agreement.2 Lynn’s Food
Stores, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 1982). The Court, before
giving its approval, must scrutinize the settlement agreement to determine whether it is a fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute of plaintiff’s FLSA claims. See id. at 1353-55. In
doing so, the Court should consider the following nonexclusive factors:


The existence of collusion behind the settlement.

2

The settlement of a claim for unpaid minimum or overtime wages under the FLSA may also
become enforceable by having the Secretary of Labor supervise the payment of unpaid wages.
Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982).

-2-







The complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation.
The state of the proceedings and the amount of discovery
completed.
The probability of plaintiff’s success on the merits.
The range of possible recovery.
The opinions of counsel.

See Leverso v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., Nat’l Assoc., 18 F.3d 1527, 1531 n.6 (11th Cir. 1994).
The Court may approve the settlement if it reflects a reasonable compromise of the FLSA claims
that are actually in dispute. See Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354. There is a strong
presumption in favor of settlement. See Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977).3
The Court, in addition to the foregoing factors, must also consider the reasonableness of
the attorney fees to be paid pursuant to the settlement agreement “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 F. App’x 349, 351-52 (11th Cir.
2009).4 The parties may demonstrate the reasonableness of the attorney fees by either: 1)
demonstrating the reasonableness of the proposed attorney fees using the lodestar method; or 2)
representing that the parties agreed to plaintiff’s attorney fees separately and without regard to the
amount paid to settle plaintiff’s FLSA claim. See Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., 715 F. Supp. 2d
1222, 1228 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

3

The Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
4

In the Eleventh Circuit, unpublished decisions are not binding, but are persuasive authority. See
11th Cir. R. 36-2.

-3-

III.

ANALYSIS.
A. Settlement Amount.
This case involves disputed issues about whether Plaintiff was as an exempt or non-exempt

employee, whether Plaintiff performed overtime work for which he was not paid, and whether
Defendant knowingly violated the FLSA. Doc. 23 at 1, 3. Thus, this case involves disputed issues
of coverage and liability under the FLSA, which constitutes a bona fide dispute.
The parties represent that they engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to settle this
case. Id. at 2. Plaintiff estimated that he is owed approximately $4,600.00 in unpaid overtime
wages under the three-year statute of limitations, and approximately $2,753.48 in unpaid overtime
wages under the two-year statute of limitations. Id. at 3. Plaintiff agreed to compromise his claim
after considering the risks of proceeding to trial, including, but not limited to, the possibility of not
recovering any overtime wages. Id.
The parties were represented by counsel throughout this case. Id. at 4. The parties agreed
to settle the case based on the risks and costs of continued litigation. Id. Plaintiff agrees to release
his claim against Defendant, in exchange for receiving $1,750.00 in unpaid overtime wages, and
$1,750.00 in liquidated damages. Docs. 23 at 4; 23-1 at 3-4. The undersigned finds this is a fair
and reasonable compromise of Plaintiff’s claim given the disputed issues in the case, and the
parties’ desire to avoid the risks and costs of continued litigation.

Accordingly, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Court find the amount of Plaintiff’s settlement to be fair and
reasonable.
B. The Release.
The Agreement contains the following release:
Release of Claims.
ANDERSON, on his own behalf,
ANDERSON’s descendants, dependents, heirs, executors,

-4-

administrators, assigns, and successors fully, finally and forever
releases and discharges LYKES CARTAGE from the Fair Labor
Standards Act violations as alleged in his Complaint (Case No.:
6:17-cv-657-Orl-40DAB).
Doc. 23-1 at 3-4. The limited scope of this release allays any concern that Plaintiff may be giving
up an unknown, but valuable, claim that is wholly unrelated to the wage claim at issue in this case.
See, e.g., Moreno v. Regions Bank, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2010); see also Bright v.
Mental Health Res. Ctr., Inc., Case No. 3:10-cv-427-J-37TEM, 2012 WL 868804 (M.D. Fla. Mar.
14, 2012). Thus, the undersigned finds that the release does not affect the overall fairness and
reasonableness of the settlement. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court find the
release does not affect the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement.
C. Attorney Fees and Costs.
Plaintiff’s counsel will receive a total of $3,500.00 in attorney fees and costs for
representing Plaintiff in this case. Docs. 23 at 4; 23-1 at 3. The parties represent that the attorney
fees and costs were “negotiated separate and apart from Plaintiff’s settlement and did not bear any
weight on the amounts received by Plaintiff.” Doc. 23 at 4. The settlement is reasonable to the
extent previously discussed, and the parties’ foregoing representation adequately establishes that
the issue of attorney fees and costs was agreed upon separately and without regard to the amount
paid to Plaintiff. See Bonetti, 715 F. Supp. 2d at 1228. Therefore, pursuant to Bonetti, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Court find the parties agreement concerning attorney fees and costs
does not affect fairness and reasonableness of the settlement
IV.

CONCLUSION.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. The Motion (Doc. 23) be GRANTED;
2. The Court find the Agreement (Doc. 23-1) to be a fair and reasonable settlement of

-5-

Plaintiff’s FLSA claim;
3. The case be DISMISSED with prejudice; and
4. The Clerk be directed to close the case.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
A party has fourteen days from this date to file written objections to the Report and
Recommendation’s factual findings and legal conclusions. A party’s failure to file written
objections waives that party’s right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or
legal conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and Recommendation. See 11th Cir. R.
3-1. The parties may file a notice of no objection in they have no objection to this Report
and Recommendation.
Recommended in Orlando, Florida on October 17, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Presiding District Judge
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party
Courtroom Deputy

-6-