Gomez v. Diverse Home Care Services, Inc. et al

Filing 20

ORDER approving settlement, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 19 Settlement Conference, Recommending that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that the Court retain jurisdiction until 12/30/2020 to enforce the settlement terms.(Objections to R&R due by 11/30/2020). Signed by Ch. Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 11/16/2020. See attached document for full details. (mkr)

Download PDF
Case 1:20-cv-23545-UU Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2020 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 20-cv-23545-CIV-UNGARO/O’SULLIVAN MARISOL GOMEZ, Plaintiff, v. DIVERSE HOME CARE SERVICES, INC. a/k/a DIVERSE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, and LEYSI CASANOVA, individually, Defendants. / 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. 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"). 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 Case 1:20-cv-23545-UU Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2020 Page 2 of 2 order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation. Id. at 1354. In this case, there is a bona fide factual and legal dispute over whether the plaintiff was an exempt employee and a factual dispute over the number of hours over forty, if any, for which the plaintiff was 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 December 30, 2020 to enforce the terms of the settlement. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 16th day of November, 2020. JOHN J. O'SULLIVAN CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?