Rodriguez v. River Strand Golf & Country Club, Inc.

Filing 60

ORDER: The parties' Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. # 55 ) and Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. # 59 ) are GRANTED. The settlement is approved. The case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 11/13/2018. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
FREDDY RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:18-cv-1130-T-33AEP

ICON MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the parties’ Joint
Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice
(Doc. # 55), filed on October 22, 2018.

Also before the Court is

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. # 59), filed on
November 9, 2018. The Court approves the settlement and grants the
Motion for Attorney’s Fees.
Background
On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff Freddy Rodriguez filed this action
against River Strand Golf & Country Club, Inc., alleging claims
for

failure

to

pay

overtime

in

violation

of

the

Fair

Labor

Standards Act. (Doc. # 1). On May 24, 2018, the Court entered its
FLSA Scheduling Order. (Doc. # 10). River Strand filed an Answer
and Affirmative Defenses on June 21, 2018. (Doc. # 15).

Therein,

River Strand asserted that it was not Rodriguez’s employer. (Id.
at 4).

On June 29, 2018, Rodriguez filed a Motion for Leave to Amend
the Complaint to add two new parties as Defendants: Icon Management
Services, Inc. and Heritage Harbour Management, Inc. (Doc. # 19).
On

the

same

day,

Rodriguez

filed

Answers

to

the

Court’s

Interrogatories, but those answers were incomplete. (Doc. # 20).
Specifically, Rodriguez failed to state the amount of wages he
claimed, and he did not provide a calculation of the attorney’s
fees incurred. (Id.).

At the Court’s direction, Rodriguez filed

updated answers to the Court’s Interrogatories on July 13, 2018.
(Doc. # 27). In the second round of answers to the Court’s
Interrogatories, Rodriguez claimed that he was owed “$39,960.00
(unliquidated)” and that his attorney had incurred $7,700.00 in
fees and costs. (Id.).
Subsequently, the Court authorized Rodriguez to amend the
Complaint. (Doc. ## 29, 30). The Court dismissed River Strand after
the parties stipulated that it was not a proper party to the
action. (Doc. ## 46, 47). Icon Management and Heritage Harbour
filed a Verified Summary of Hours Worked by Plaintiff and Wages
Paid to Plaintiff on August 23, 2018. (Doc. # 48).

The very next

day, Rodriguez once again amended his answers to the Court’s
Interrogatories, drastically reducing the amount he claimed to be
owed to only $419.58, an amount which included liquidated damages.
(Doc.

#

49).

The

third

round

of

answers

to

the

Court’s

Interrogatories maintained that Rodriguez’s counsel had incurred

$7,700.00 in attorney’s fees and costs. (Id.).
Case Settlement and FLSA Fee Shifting Analysis
The parties were scheduled to mediate on October 8, 2018.
(Doc. # 51).

However, the mediator reported that the parties

settled prior to the mediation conference. (Doc. # 52).
Rodriguez

alleges

that

Defendants

violated

the

Because

FLSA,

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 Court accordingly directed the parties to file a Motion
for Court Approval of the Settlement including “the amount to be
paid to Plaintiff (including liquidated damages), the payment of
Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, and whether the issue of attorney’s
fees was negotiated separately from the amount to be paid to
Plaintiff for alleged FLSA violations.” (Doc. # 52).
On October 22, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion for
Approval of FLSA Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice. (Doc. #
55).

However, their Motion contained a glaring defect: it did not

disclose the amount that Rodriguez’s counsel would receive under
the settlement.

On October 26, 2018, the Court directed the

parties to file the Settlement Agreement on the docket so that the
Court could analyze the attorney’s fees. (Doc. # 56).

On November

2, 2018, the parties filed the Settlement Agreement. (Doc. # 57).
The parties agreed to settle the case as follows: The Plaintiff

will receive $700.00 and his counsel will receive $5,300.00. (Id.).
The Court directed counsel to provide his fee ledger and
further support for the attorney’s fees requested. (Doc. # 58).
At this juncture, Plaintiff’s counsel has provided a detailed fee
ledger and a memorandum in support of the fees requested. (Doc. #
59). Counsel represents that he actually incurred $9,648.00 in
attorney’s fees, but he has agreed to reduce the attorney’s fees
in an effort to resolve the case. (Doc. # 59-2 at 3).

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). Here, the Court finds the fees reasonable in
relation to the time dedicated to the case. 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. # 55 at 3).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
(1)

The

parties’

Joint

Motion

for

Approval

of

FLSA

Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. # 55)
and Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. #
59) are GRANTED.
(2)

The settlement is approved.

(3)

The case is dismissed with prejudice.

(4)

The Clerk is directed to close the case.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
13th day of November, 2018.

5