Nawalrai et al v. United Cellular Wireless, Inc.

Filing 22

ORDER Approving Settlement Agreement re 1 Notice of Removal (State Court Complaint) filed by United Cellular Wireless, Inc., AND RECOMMENDING that case be dismissed with prejudice and that the Court retain jurisdiction until November 6, 2017. ( Objections to R&R due by 9/20/2017) Signed by Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 9/6/2017. (mms)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 17-23031-CIV-UNGARO/O'SULLIVAN
RAMESH NAWALRI,
SHEILA NAWALRI,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED CELLULAR WIRELESS, INC.
Defendant.
/
ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CASE BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
THIS MATTER came before the Court following a settlement conference before
the undersigned and the Court having conducted a hearing concerning the settlement.1
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 claims for minimum wage and 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

1

At the settlement conference, the parties also settled the claims asserted in
Kwest Communications, Inc. v. United Cellular Wireless Inc., et al., which was referred
to arbitration by this Court in Case No. 16-20242-CV-Moreno/O’Sullivan.

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 over the number of hours, if any,
for which the plaintiffs were not properly compensated. The terms of the settlement
were announced on the record in open Court. 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
disputes. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the parties' settlement agreement (including
attorney’s fees and costs) is hereby APPROVED. It is further
RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed with prejudice and that the Court
retain jurisdiction until November 6, 2017 to enforce the terms of the settlement.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 6th day of
September, 2017.

JOHN J. O’SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies provided to:
United States District Judge Ungaro
All counsel of record

2