Barends v. Circle K Stores, Inc.
Filing
158
ORDER terminating 108 Motion for Leave to File; granting 153 Motion for Settlement; adopting 157 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 5/20/2014. (ESG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JAMES BARENDS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated
who consent to their inclusion and
MELISSA THIBODEAUX, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated who consent to their
inclusion,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 8:13-cv-1623-T-35TBM
CIRCLE K STORES, INC., a foreign
corporation,
Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Joint Motion to
Approve the Parties' Settlement (Dkt. 153). On May 8, 2014, United States Magistrate
Judge Thomas B. McCoun III held a fairness hearing on the matter. Thereafter, on May
16, 2014, Judge McCoun issued a Report and Recommendation, concluding that the
settlement agreement is reasonable and fair in light of the circumstances and facts in this
case. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge McCoun recommended the Parties'
Joint Motion to Approve the Parties' Settlement (Dkt. 153), incorporating each Settlement
Agreement and Full and Final Release of All Claims (Dkt. 153-1), and each Acceptance
and Verification of Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 153-2) be granted.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the Magistrate Judge's
report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d
732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge “shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This
requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific
objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512
(11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence of specific
objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo,
Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence
of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an
independent examination of the settlement agreement and file, the Court is of the opinion
that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all
respects. The Court finds that the parties’ Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable.
The Court’s approval of this Settlement Agreement, however, in no way alters any party’s
obligation to pay or withhold appropriate sums for tax purposes in accordance with the
requirements of the Internal Revenue Code.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1.
The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 157) is CONFIRMED and
ADOPTED as part of this Order; and
2.
Joint Motion to Approve the Parties' Settlement (Dkt. 153) is GRANTED.
2
3.
Settlement Agreement and Full and Final Release of All Claims (Dkt. 1571) is APPROVED and shall Govern the Parties’ conduct in settlement of
this action.
4. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own
legal fees and costs, except as specified in the parties’ Settlement
Agreement and Full and Final Release of All Claims. No retainer
agreement between the Plaintiff and counsel shall override or alter the
amount of settlement proceeds due to the Plaintiff in accordance with
the terms of the settlement agreement as approved by this Order.
Counsel shall provide a copy of this order to their respective clients.
5. The CLERK is directed to TERMINATE any pending motions and CLOSE
this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 20th day of May, 2014.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Any Unrepresented Person
3
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?