Thomson v. Amazon.com Services LLC
ORDER: The parties' joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Doc. # 31) is granted. The parties' settlement is approved. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/26/2021. (AR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 8:20-cv-3121-VMC-CPT
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Doc. # 31),
filed on April 26, 2021. For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is granted.
Plaintiff Roger Thomson filed this Fair Labor Standards
Services LLC, on December 31, 2021, alleging violations of
the overtime provisions of the FLSA. (Doc. # 1). On January
11, 2021, the Court entered its FLSA Scheduling Order. (Doc.
# 9). The parties mediated the dispute on March 16, 2021,
before Carlos J. Burruezo, Esq. (Doc. # 25). Mr. Burruezo
then filed his mediation report, indicating that the “case
ha[d] been completely settled.” (Id. at 1). Thereafter, the
Court entered an order directing the parties to file their
motion for court approval of the settlement by March 29, 2021.
(Doc. # 26). Upon the parties’ request, the Court extended
the deadline to April 26, 2021. (Doc. ## 27; 29; 30).
On April 26, 2021, the parties filed their motion for
court approval of the settlement, including a copy of the
settlement agreement. (Doc. ## 31; 31-1). The Motion is now
ripe for review.
Thomson alleges that Amazon.com violated the overtime
provisions of the FLSA. (Doc. # 1 at ¶¶ 49-54). 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
reached a settlement wherein it was agreed that Thomson would
receive “$4,500, less applicable withholdings, representing
alleged back wages under the FLSA” and “$4,500, representing
alleged liquidated damages under the FLSA.” (Doc. # 31 at ¶
6). According to the Motion, Thomson “acknowledges that the
settlement amounts represent fair recoveries for his claims.”
(Id. at 5).
Additionally, the parties have agreed that Thomson’s
counsel will receive “attorney’s fees and costs of $4,500.”
(Id. at ¶ 8). In their Motion, the parties represent that the
“attorney’s fees and costs were negotiated separately” from
Thomson’s recovery of unpaid wages. (Id.). Upon review of the
The Court must consider several factors in deciding
whether to approve a settlement agreement in an FLSA case. As
explained in Bonetti v. Embarq Management Company, 715 F.
Supp. 2d 1222, 1228 (M.D. Fla. 2009),
if the parties submit a proposed FLSA settlement
that,(1) constitutes a
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.
approves the compromise reached by the parties in an effort
to amicably settle this case. The settlement is fair and
represents a reasonable compromise of the parties’ dispute.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:
The Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Doc. # 31)
DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Court declines to retain jurisdiction to enforce the
terms of the settlement agreement.
The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
26th day of April, 2021.
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?