Giraud v. Woof Gang Bakery, Inc. et al

Filing 42

ORDER: The parties' Amended Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. # 41 ) is GRANTED. The Settlement is APPROVED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall CLOSE THE CASE. The Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the settlement. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 11/26/2018. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ANNETTE GIRAUD,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO.: 8:18-cv-1127-T-33SPF

WOOF GANG BAKERY, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
the parties’ Amended Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement
and Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. # 41), filed November 15,
2018. By their Motion, the parties move the Court to approve
the settlement agreement in this Fair Labor Standards Act
action and dismiss the case with prejudice. The Court grants
the Motion.
Discussion
Plaintiff Annette Giraud filed her Complaint on May 8,
2018, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Woof Gang Bakery, Inc., WGB Clearwater,
LLC, Ryan Lund, and Gina Marie Lund. (Doc. # 1). In her
Complaint, Giraud alleges Defendants did not pay overtime
wages and minimum wages in violation of the FLSA. (Id. at 1).

1

Plaintiffs Brittany Westley, Erika Schumm, and Amanda Stewart
later joined in the action. (Doc. # 18). Defendants filed an
Answer and Affirmative Defenses on June 6, 2018. (Doc. # 19).
The

case

was

previously

assigned

to

the

Honorable

Richard A. Lazzara, United States District Judge.
on

October

2,

undersigned.

2018,

(Doc.

the
23).

#

case

was

The

However,

re-assigned

Court

entered

to

its

the
FLSA

Scheduling Order on October 5, 2018, which referred the action
to

mediation.

(Doc.

#

26).

A

mediation

conference

was

scheduled for January 18, 2019. (Doc. # 32).
However,

the

parties

reported

that

they

reached

a

settlement before the scheduled mediation conference. (Doc.
# 37). Because this is an FLSA action, any agreement reached
by the parties is subject to judicial scrutiny. See Lynn’s
Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1353 (11th Cir.
1982). Accordingly, as directed by the Court (Doc. # 38), the
parties filed a timely Motion for Approval of Settlement.
(Doc. # 41).
In the agreed upon settlement, Giraud will receive “Zero
Dollars ($0.00).” (Doc. # 41 at 1).

The parties explain that

she has agreed to a settlement of a related case, “8:17-cv2442; however, that case is pending in arbitration before the
American

Arbitration

Association

2

and

settlement

approval

efforts will be filed with the arbitrator, and that court, as
necessary.” (Id. at 2).

Opt-in Plaintiff Brittney Westley

will also receive “Zero Dollars ($0.00)” because “she has
agreed to withdraw her notice of consent to join.” (Id. at
3).

Opt-in Plaintiff Erika Schumm will receive $1,050.00,

and her attorney will receive $3,000.00. (Id.). Finally, optin Plaintiff Amanda Stewart will receive $650.00, and her
attorney will receive $3,000.00.

(Id.).

There are several factors that a court should consider
when determining whether to approve a settlement agreement in
an FLSA action, which are as follows:
if the parties submit a proposed FLSA settlement
that, (1) constitutes a compromise of the
plaintiff’s claims; (2) makes a full and adequate
disclosure of the terms of settlement, including
the factors and reasons considered in reaching same
and justifying the compromise of the plaintiff’s
claims; and (3) represents that the plaintiff’s
attorneys’ fee was agreed upon separately and
without regard to the amount paid to the plaintiff,
then, unless the settlement does not appear
reasonable on its face or there is reason to believe
that the plaintiff’s recovery was adversely
affected by the amount of fees paid to his attorney,
the Court will approve the settlement without
separately considering the reasonableness of the
fee to be paid to plaintiff’s counsel.
Bonetti v. Embarq Management Company, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1222,
1228 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

3

The

parties

have

provided

copies

of

the

settlement

agreements to the Court, (Doc. ## 41-1, 41-2, 41-3) and, after
reviewing

the

agreements,

the

Court

determines

that

the

settlement is fair and reasonable. The Court notes that the
attorney’s fees seem high when compared to the amount that
the individual Plaintiffs will receive.
$7,700.00

settlement,

$6,000.00

Specifically, of the

will

go

to

Plaintiffs’

counsel. Nevertheless, the Court ultimately approves the
settlement,

including

the

attorney’s

fees,

based

on

the

representations made in Plaintiffs’ Answers to the Court’s
Interrogatories

on

November

5,

2018.

(Doc.

##

34-36).

Therein, Plaintiffs stated that their attorneys had incurred
$22,135.00 in fees. (Id.).

Therefore, the $6,000.00 in

attorney’s fees here represents a significant reduction, made
in an effort to facilitate settlement.
The Court, having considered the factors set out in
Bonetti, 715 F. Supp. 2d at 1228, approves the settlement and
dismisses the case with prejudice.

The Court recognizes that

the parties request that the Court retain jurisdiction over
the settlement; however, the Court declines to do so.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

4

(1)

The

parties’

Amended

Joint

Motion

for

Approval

of

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

The Settlement is APPROVED.

(3)

This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

(4)

The Clerk shall CLOSE THE CASE.

(5)

The Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the
settlement.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

26th day of November, 2018.

5