Rivera v. CVI.CHE 105, INC. et al
Filing
88
Order Approving Settlement Agreement and Closing Case. Signed by Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 3/25/2015. (mms) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 13-24382-CIV-O'SULLIVAN
[CONSENT]
DOUGLAS ZAMORA, KLAUSS PELAEZ,
YANIRA ROLON and HECTOR MORALES
on their own and on behalf of others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CVI.CHE 105, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation,
JUAN CHIPOCO, an individual, and
LUIS HOYOS, an individual,
Defendants.
/
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 14-20997-CIV-O’SULLIVAN
[CONSENT]
DAVID RIVERA, on his own behalf
and on
behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
CVI.CHE 105, INC., a Florida for-profit
corporation, JUAN CHIPOCO, an individual,
and LUIS HOYOS, an individual,
Defendants.
/
ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS MATTER came before the Court sua sponte following notice from the
parties that the case has settled 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.
These cases involve claims for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq ("FLSA"). 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 are factual and legal disputes regarding whether the tip credit
applied and if so, whether the tip credit was applied properly. The Court has reviewed
the terms of the settlement agreement including the amount to be received by the
plaintiffs 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 disputes. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the parties' settlement agreement (including
attorney’s fees and costs) is hereby APPROVED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the parties may submit a joint motion for
dismissal with prejudice by Monday, April 27, 2015. If the parties fail to file their joint
motion for dismissal by that date, the undersigned will dismiss this action with prejudice.
THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE AS CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 25th day of March,
2012.
JOHN J. O'SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies to:
All counsel of record
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?