Oster v. Lucky Restaurant Management LLC et al

Filing 40

ORDER: The parties' Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. # 36 ) is granted. The parties' settlement is approved but the Court declines to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/7/2017. (DMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JOSEPH OSTER, on behalf
of himself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 8:16-cv-2352-T-33MAP

v.
LUCKY RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT
LLC d/b/a LUCKY DILL DELI, and
KIMBERLY MITOW, individually,

Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement and
Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. # 36), filed on January 27,
2017. The Court grants the Motion, but declines to retain
jurisdiction

to

enforce

the

terms

of

the

settlement

agreement.
Discussion
Plaintiff Joseph Oster filed this action against his
former employer in federal court on August 17, 2016, alleging
violations of the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (Doc. # 1). On October
14, 2016, the Court issued its FLSA Scheduling Order (Doc. #

1

8) and Order referring the case to mediation. (Doc. # 9). On
November 18, 2016, Oster filed a Notice of Consent to Join,
on behalf of Matthew Selezan. (Doc. # 18). At the Court’s
direction, the parties mediated on December 16, 2016, but
reached an impasse. (Doc. ## 15, 28). On December 21, 2016,
the Court entered its Case Management and Scheduling Order.
(Doc. # 31).
Subsequently, on January 27, 2017, the parties filed
their

Joint

Motion

for

Approval

of

FLSA

Settlement

and

Dismissal with Prejudice, but did not attach a copy of the
Settlement Agreement. (Doc. # 36). Pursuant to the Court’s
Order (Doc. # 37), the parties submitted the Settlement
Agreement

and

an

affidavit

of

Oster’s

counsel

regarding

attorney’s fees on February 3, 2017. (Doc. ## 38, 39).
Oster alleges that Defendants violated the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, any settlement
reached between the parties is subject to judicial scrutiny.
See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350,
1353 (11th Cir. 1982). The parties have reached a settlement
wherein it is agreed that Oster will receive a total payment
of $7,000 in unpaid wages and liquidated damages, and Selezan
shall receive a total payment of $1,800 in unpaid wages and
liquidated damages. (Doc. # 38 at 1). It has also been agreed
2

that Oster’s counsel will receive $8,200 in attorney’s fees
and costs. (Id. at 2).
This Court is duty-bound to scrutinize the attorney’s
fees requested in this FLSA case as directed by the court in
Silva v. Miller, 307 F. App’x 349 (11th Cir. 2009). There,
the court explained:
FLSA requires judicial review of the reasonableness
of counsel’s legal fees 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. FLSA
provides for reasonable attorney’s fees; the
parties cannot contract in derogation of FLSA’s
provisions. To turn a blind eye to an agreed upon
contingency fee in an amount greater than the
amount determined to be reasonable after judicial
scrutiny runs counter to FLSA’s provisions for
compensating the wronged employee.
Id. at 352.
Having

reviewed

the

affidavit

provided

by

Oster’s

counsel (Doc. # 39), the Court finds the fees reasonable in
relation to the time dedicated to the case, the billing
attorney’s qualifications, and the outcome attained for Oster
and Selezan. Furthermore, the parties represent that the
attorney’s

fees

to

be

paid

to

counsel

were

negotiated

separately and without regard to the other terms of the
settlement. (Doc. # 36 at 3). Although they disagree as to
the validity of the claims, the parties represent that they

3

have

negotiated

a

settlement

of

this

matter

to

avoid

“expensive, protracted, and uncertain litigation.” (Id. at
4).
Based on these representations, the Court finds the
settlement

complies

with

Lynn’s

Food

and

approves

the

settlement. Although the Court approves the settlement, the
Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the case to enforce
the terms of the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The

parties’

Joint

Motion

for

Approval

of

FLSA

Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. # 36) is
GRANTED.
(2)

The

parties’

settlement

is

approved

but

the

Court

declines to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of
the settlement. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
(3)

The Clerk is directed to CLOSE THE CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 7th

day of February, 2017.

4