Dumas v. 1 Able Realty, LLC et al
ORDER adopting 36 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 33 Second Renewed Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Entry of Order of Dismissal with prejudice filed by 1 Able Realty, LLC. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 4/16/2018. (ctp)(JLC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6:17-cv-765-Orl-37KRS
1 ABLE REALTY, LLC; and JARRETT
Plaintiff initiated this action against her former employers alleging, among other
things, that they failed to compensate her for overtime hours worked in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). (See Doc. 1.) The parties then moved for approval of
their FLSA settlement agreement under Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States ex rel.
United States Department of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982). (See Doc. 33
(“Motion”); Doc. 33-2 (“Agreement”).)
Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendants will pay Plaintiff a total of
$10,000—$4,217 in settlement of claims (“Payment”) and $5,783 to her counsel (“Attorney
Fees”). (Doc. 33, p. 3; Doc. 33-2, ¶ 3.) The Agreement also contains a release providing, in
part, that Plaintiff “covenants and agrees not to pursue the Lawsuit or any other civil
action relating to the allegations in [Plaintiff’s] Complaint. [Plaintiff] expressly waives,
releases, and forever discharges any and all claims asserted in the Complaint related to
[Plaintiff’s] employment against [Defendants]” (“Release”). (Doc. 33-2, ¶ 2.)
On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding concludes that: (1) Plaintiff
has compromised her claim; (2) the Payment is fair and reasonable; and (3) the Attorney
Fees were negotiated separately from the Payment. (Doc. 36 (“R&R”).) Although
Magistrate Judge Spaulding finds that the Release does not undermine the fairness of the
settlement, she notes that the Undersigned has cautioned against including concessions
unrelated to the substance of FLSA claims in FLSA settlements. (Id. at 5–6.) So she
recommends that if the Court finds that the Release is sufficiently narrow, the Court
should grant the Motion and approve the Agreement. (Id. at 6–7.) Upon review, the Court
finds that the Release is sufficiently narrow because, as Magistrate Judge Spaulding
points out, it “does not require Plaintiff to release all possible claims, but only those
asserted in the [C]omplaint.” (Id. at 6.) Hence the Release does not render the Settlement
unfair. See Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706. F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1240 (M.D. Fla. 2010).
On April 13, 2018, the parties filed a joint notice of no objection to the R&R.
(Doc. 37.) Absent objections, the Court has examined 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 none, the Court concludes that the R&R is due to be adopted in
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 36) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order.
The parties’ Second Renewed Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement
Agreement and Entry of an Order of Dismissal with Prejudice and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 33) is GRANTED.
The parties’ Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (Doc. 33-2) is
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on April 16, 2018.
Counsel of Record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?