Balint et al v. Osceola County, Florida
Filing
47
ORDER dismissing case. Because the terms of the settlement agreement are fair and reasonable in accordance with Lynn's Food, 679 F.2d 1350, the parties' joint motion for settlement approval (Dkt. 46) is GRANTED, and the settlement agr eement (Dkt. 46-1) is APPROVED. The parties shall comply with the terms of the settlement agreement (Dkt. 46-1), and the court reserves jurisdiction over this action to enforce that agreement. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and to close this case. Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 1/28/2025. (AJL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ROBERT BALINT, BRANDON
BOWLING, BRIAN CARROLL,
JOHN CRICHTON, ANDREAS
DELAY, BRETT FORD, ERIK
JARVIS, DOMINIC LYNN,
MATTHEW MCNAB, PAUL
MCCORKELL, ADAM SEITHEL,
BRIAN SHEETS, and JOHN
TAYLOR,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 6:24-cv-938-JSS-UAM
OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiffs filed this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA),
29 U.S.C. §§ 201–219, asserting that Defendant misclassified them as exempt and
failed to compensate them at the applicable overtime rate. (Dkt. 1.) After participating
in a settlement conference, (see Dkt. 27 at 2–3), the parties reached a settlement
agreement, (see Dkt. 46-1), which they now ask the court to approve, (see Dkt. 46).
Upon consideration, the court grants the parties’ motion (Dkt. 46), approves the
settlement agreement (Dkt. 46-1), and dismisses this case with prejudice.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Claims for compensation under the FLSA may be settled only when the
Department of Labor supervises the payment of back wages or when the court enters
a stipulated judgment “after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Lynn’s Food
Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352–53 (11th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, in
any FLSA case, the court must review the settlement to determine whether it is a “fair
and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.” Id. at 1355. When evaluating
whether a FLSA settlement is fair and reasonable, a court considers six factors: (1)
whether the settlement represents a compromise between the parties, (2) whether the
terms of the settlement are fully and adequately disclosed, (3) whether the parties are
justified in settling the FLSA claims, (4) whether the parties’ attorney fees were
“agreed upon separately and without regard to the amount paid to the plaintiff[s],” (5)
whether the settlement appears unreasonable on its face, and (6) whether “there is
reason to believe that the plaintiff[s’] recovery was adversely affected by the amount
of fees paid” to the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., 715 F. Supp. 2d
1222, 1228 (M.D. Fla. 2009).
ANALYSIS
This case involves contested issues of liability and damages constituting a bona
fide dispute under the FLSA.
(See Dkt. 1.)
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
misclassified them as exempt and failed to compensate them at the applicable overtime
rate. (See id.) Defendant denies these allegations. (See Dkt. 16.) Under the proposed
settlement agreement, Defendant agrees to reclassify Plaintiffs as non-exempt and to
pay a total of $344,962.40 to resolve Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims. (Dkt. 46-1 at 3.) This
total includes $211,500.92 in backpay, $105,750.46 in liquidated damages, and
$27,711.02 in reimbursed attorney fees and expenses. (Id. at 3–4.) The parties describe
the amount of backpay to be paid to each Plaintiff. (See Dkt. 46-3 at 1.) Further, the
parties state that they mutually determined the method used to calculate the amounts
-2-
to be paid per Plaintiff. (Dkt. 46-1 at 5.) Therefore, as the parties assert, (Dkt. 46 at
11–13), the settlement represents a justifiable compromise. In addition, the terms of
the settlement are fully and adequately disclosed, and the settlement appears
reasonable on its face. (See Dkt. 46-1.) See Bonetti, 715 F. Supp. 2d at 1228.
Regarding attorney fees, the court is generally required to review the
reasonableness of counsel’s fee in a FLSA case to assure that counsel is compensated
adequately and that no conflict of interest arises involving counsel’s compensation and
the amount the employee recovers under the settlement. See Silva v. Miller, 307 F.
App’x 349, 351 (11th Cir. 2009). However, if the matter of fees is addressed separately
and independently from the plaintiffs’ recovery and the settlement appears fair, the
court may approve the settlement without separately considering the reasonableness
of counsel’s fees. See Bonetti, 715 F. Supp. 2d at 1228; see also Rezendes v. Domenick’s
Blinds & Decor, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-1401-T-33JSS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94797, at *4–5
(M.D. Fla. July 21, 2015). Here, the parties represent that the amount to be paid to
Plaintiffs’ counsel was negotiated separately from Plaintiffs’ recovery, (Dkt. 46-2 at 3–
4), and there is no reason to believe that Plaintiffs’ recovery was adversely affected by
the amount of fees paid to Plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Thus, the court approves the
settlement without separately considering the reasonableness of counsel’s fees. See
Bonetti, 715 F. Supp. 2d at 1228.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly:
1. Because the terms of the settlement agreement are fair and reasonable in
accordance with Lynn’s Food, 679 F.2d 1350, the parties’ joint motion for
-3-
settlement approval (Dkt. 46) is GRANTED, and the settlement agreement
(Dkt. 46-1) is APPROVED.
2. The parties shall comply with the terms of the settlement agreement (Dkt. 461), and the court reserves jurisdiction over this action to enforce that agreement.
3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and
to close this case.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on January 28, 2025.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
-4-
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?