POOLE v. KRATOS LOGISTICS LLC et al

Filing 27

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CASE BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE that the Court retain jurisdiction until 10/29/2021 to enforce the settlement. (Objections to R&R due by 9/9/2021). Signed by Ch. Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 9/8/2021. See attached document for full details. (mkr)Text and event Modified on 9/8/2021 (cqs).

Case 1:21-cv-22609-MGC Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2021 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 21-cv-22609-CIV-COOKE/O’SULLIVAN
JOHNNY E. POOL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KRATOS LOGISTICS LLC, MIGUEL
ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, and
DANIEL CAMEJO
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 claims for unpaid minimum wage and a plaintiff’s retaliation
claim 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

Case 1:21-cv-22609-MGC Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2021 Page 2 of 3

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 each plaintiff was not properly compensated and a dispute over whether a
plaintiff experienced retaliation. 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 each 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 October 29, 2021 to enforce the terms of the settlement.
The parties shall have one (1) day1 from the date of receipt of this Report and
Recommendation within which to serve and file written objections, if any, with the
Honorable Marcia G. Cooke, United States District Court Judge. Failure to file
objections timely shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District
Judge of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from attacking on
appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in the Report except upon
grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Harrigan v. Metro Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1191-1192 (11th Cir.
2020); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790,

1

The parties agreed to a shortened, one-day period for filing objections.
2

Case 1:21-cv-22609-MGC Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2021 Page 3 of 3

794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016).
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 8th day of
September, 2021.

JOHN J. O'SULLIVAN
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3