Corzo v. Bright Brass & Metal Painting, Co. et al

Filing 17

ORDER Approving Settlement Agreement on FLSA overtime wage claim (Count I); and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Count I be dismissed, that the Court retain jurisdiction until 11/1/2011 to enforce the terms of the settlement, and that Count II (retaliatory discharge under ERISA) be set for trial. (Objections to R&R due by 8/8/2011). Signed by Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 7/20/2011. (mms)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-21562-CIV-LENARD/O'SULLIVAN
MANUEL CORZO and all others
similarly situated pursuant to
29 U.S.C. 216(b)
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIGHT BRASS & METAL PAINTING,
CO., and OSWALDO JIMENEZ,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
RECOMMENDING THAT FLSA CLAIM BE DISMISSED
THIS MATTER came before the Court following a settlement conference before
the undersigned regarding the overtime wage claim (Count I) and the Court having
conducted a hearing concerning the settlement.
THE COURT has heard from counsel and considered the terms of the settlement
agreement, the pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise fully advised in the
premises.
This case involves a claim for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq ("FLSA") (Count I) and a claim for
retaliatory discharge in violation of ERISA Section 510, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (Count II),
which is not subject to the terms of the parties settlement and remains pending.
In reviewing a settlement of an FLSA private claim, a court must "scrutiniz[e] the
settlement for fairness," and determine that the settlement is a "fair and reasonable
resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions." Lynn Food Stores v. United

States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 1982). A settlement entered into in an
adversarial context where both sides are represented by counsel throughout litigation
"is more likely to reflect a reasonable compromise of disputed issues." Id. The district
court may approve the settlement in order to promote the policy of encouraging
settlement of litigation. Id. at 1354.
In this case, there is a bona fide factual dispute regarding the amount of
overtime owed. The Court has reviewed the terms of the settlement agreement
including the amount to be received by the plaintiff and the attorney’s fees and costs to
be received by counsel and finds that the compromise reached by the parties is a fair
and reasonable resolution of the parties' bona fide dispute regarding the overtime wage
claim (Count I). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the parties' settlement agreement regarding
the overtime wage claim (including attorney’s fees and costs) is hereby APPROVED. It
is further
RECOMMENDED that the FLSA overtime wage claim (Count I) BE DISMISSED
and this Court retain jurisdiction until November 1, 2011 to enforce the terms of the
settlement. The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the retaliatory discharge
claim (Count II) be set for trial.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 20th day of July,
2011.
________________________________
JOHN J. O’SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies provided to:
United States District Judge Lenard
All counsel of record
2