Amrhein v. Regency Management Services, LLC, et al.

Filing 261

MEMORANDUM (Letter Opinion) AND ORDER denying Plaintiffs' #257 Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Accepted Offers of Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson on 10/29/14. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Chambers of
J. Mark Coulson
U.S. Magistrate Judge

101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

October 29, 2014
LETTER OPINION TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD
Re: Deborah Amrhein et al v. Regency Management Services, LLC
Civil No. 13-CV-1114-JMC
Dear Counsel:
The Court has before it Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Accepted Rule 68 Offers of
Judgment pertaining to Plaintiffs: Deborah Amrhein, Oswald Copeland, Brenda O’Brien, George
Haley, and Michaela Lintz (ECF No. 257) and Defendants’ Response consenting thereto (ECF No.
258). This is the parties’ third attempt to obtain approval of these Rule 68 Offers of Judgment. (See
ECF Nos. 157 & 158). In response to the parties’ prior requests this Court held that an FLSA case
cannot be concluded by a Rule 68 offer of judgment, but requires a review by the Court. (ECF Nos.
157 & 52). Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion without prejudice and directs the
parties to file an appropriate Joint Motion for Approval within 14 days of this letter order.
By way of guidance, the parties’ supporting memorandum should include specific factual
representations and legal argument demonstrating what bona fide disputes exist and how the
proposed settlement constitutes a fair and reasonable compromise of those disputed issues, using the
factors discussed in Saman v. LBDP, Inc., No. DKC-12-1083, 2013 WL 2949047, at *3 (D. Md. June 13,
2013). 1 The parties should attach the proposed settlement agreement as an exhibit, along with the

1

If a bona fide dispute exists, courts evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement
using the following factors:
“(1) the extent of discovery that has taken place; (2) the stage of the proceedings,
including the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the absence of
fraud or collusion in the settlement; (4) the experience of counsel who have represented
the plaintiffs; (5) the opinions of [] counsel . . . ; and (6) the probability of plaintiffs’
Northern Division • 4228 U.S. Courthouse • 101 W. Lombard Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21201• 410-962-2600
Southern Division • 200 U.S. Courthouse • 6500 Cherrywood Lane • Greenbelt, Maryland 20770 • 301-344-0660
Visit the U.S. District Court’s Website at www.mdd.uscourts.gov

evidence necessary for me to evaluate the attorneys’ fees using the lodestar approach. For guidance
in providing the information necessary for the Court’s lodestar analysis, counsel should review Chief
Judge Chasanow’s opinion in Saman, where the parties were required to supplement their motion
with the necessary information. 2013 WL 2949047, at *6–7.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it is an Order of the Court and the Clerk is directed to
docket it as such.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
J. Mark Coulson
United States Magistrate Judge

success on the merits and the amount of the settlement in relation to the potential
recovery.” Saman, 2013 WL 2949047, at *3 (quoting Lomascolo, 2009 WL 3094955, at *10).