Saxon v. Talmadge Royal

Filing 13

ORDER denying re 12 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Gregory Saxon. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order on Defendant and provide the Court notice of that service. Should the parties agree to settle their case, they are directed to file, within fourteen days of any settlement, a copy of their proposed agreement for this Court's review. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 7/23/2014. (loh)

U.S.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

r

i UcL

GREGORY SAXON,
Plaintiff,
V.

TALMADGE ROYAL, d/b/a
Frost,

Sf0

Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is the parties' Notice of Dismissal.
(Doc. 12.) In this document, Plaintiff seeks to
voluntarily dismiss his case, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a) (1) (A) (i) so that he can "engage in
good faith settlement discussions with Defendant's putative
counsel." (Doc. 12 ¶ 2.) Normally, parties are free to
voluntarily dismiss their cases. Plaintiff's complaint,
however, alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. H 201-219. (Doc. 1 ¶J 10-12.)
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized
only two procedures for employees to settle or otherwise
compromise FLSA claims. See Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v.
United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) . First, the
' At Plaintiff's request, Defendant is currently in default
for failing to file either an answer or motion to dismiss
in this case. (Doe. 11.)

..)

H'

Secretary of Labor is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 216(c)
to approve a settlement of FLSA claims and oversee the
employer's payment of wages owed to employees. Lynn's Food
Stores, 679 F.2d at 1353. Any employee electing to pursue
his claims through the Secretary of Labor waives his right
to seek relief in federal court for any unpaid wages or
liquidated damages, so long as the employer fully
compensates the employee for the unpaid wages. Id.
Second, an employee can settle FLSA claims that are part of
a lawsuit brought by the employee against the employer
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 216(b). Lynn's Food Stores, 679
F.2d at 1353.
Plaintiff has elected the second option, filing a suit
directly against his employer alleging violations of the
FLSA. Because Plaintiff contends that the purpose of
dismissal is to attempt to negotiate a settlement in this
case, the Court is hesitant to allow Plaintiff to dismiss
his case. Importantly to all involved, the settlement of
any FLSA claim outside of either of the two procedures
outlined in Lynn's Food Stores would fail to have any legal
effect. Quite simply, the FLSA does not permit adversarial
parties resolve FLSA claims by entering into private
settlement agreements outside the context of either an
existing lawsuit or the auspices of the Secretary of Labor.

See Lynn's Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354.

Therefore,

Plaintiff's request that this case be dismissed must be
denied because any attempt to negotiate a settlement of
Plaintiff's FLSA claims must be made in the context of a
federal lawsuit and gain approval of the Court.
As a word of warning, both parties in this case appear
to be wandering aimlessly in the Cretan Labyrinth hoping to
avoid the Minotaur. Plaintiff failed to properly place
Defendant in default after two separate attempts (Doc. 7;
Doc. 9), finally finding success on the third (Doc. 10).
Moreover, Plaintiff's attempt to voluntarily dismiss this
case and enter into settlement negotiations evinces a
disconcerting lack of understanding of the statutory
framework regarding the very claims he is seeking to
advance. Of course, Defendant's failure to even answer
Plaintiff's complaint, which eventually landed him in
default, needs no colorful language to describe the
complete lack of advocacy on his behalf.
Given the state of affairs, the Court will attempt to
provide the parties with a ball of string to guide them
through their encounter. As an initial matter, the Court
strongly recommends that Defendant retain legal counsel—a
guide to assist him in navigating through the complexities
of the FLSA. As for Plaintiff, the Court suggests that he

3

review the law concerning default judgments, starting with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, and the settlement of
FLSA claims, starting with Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v.
United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) . The Court
notes that these suggestions are mere points of embarkation
and not meant to convey all the relevant legal analysis
necessary to effectively advocate in this case.
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's Notice of
Dismissal (Doc. 12) is DENIED.

Because Plaintiff appears

to be in contact with Defendant's putative

counsel,

Plaintiff is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on
Defendant and provide the Court notice of that service.
Should the parties agree to settle their case, they are
DIRECTED to file, within fourteen days of any settlement, a

copy of their proposed agreement for this Court's review.
Also, the Court once again suggests that, prior to

2

Plaintiff's use of the word putative to describe
Defendant's counsel leads this Court to suspect that
Defendant has not retained counsel, but is instead acting
on his own behalf. Should that be the case, it only
reinforces the Court's decision not to dismiss this case to
allow the parties to negotiate because any unapproved
settlement compromising Plaintiff's FLSA claim would not
absolve Defendant of potential liability. In other words,
the parties can enter into an unapproved settlement
agreement, but Plaintiff would still be permitted to file
suit against Defendant for the very same FLSA violations.
This also highlights the danger posed by Defendant
attempting to navigate such a complex statutory framework
without the assistance of counsel.
4

submitting their proposed agreement, the parties review
Lynn's Food Stores to determine if their agreement is a
proper settlement of Plaintiff's FLSA claims.
SO ORDERED this

Jday of July 2014.

WILLIAM T. MOORE,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

5