Castro v. Centre Park Grill, LLC et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 21 Joint Motion for Settlement Approval filed by Sandra Castro Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 12/21/2016. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
SANDRA CASTRO,

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*

CENTRE PARK GRILL, LLC, et al..,
Defendants
*
*

CIVIL NO. JKB-16-2779

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for approval of a settlement
agreement in this case based upon the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-401 et seq. (LexisNexis
2008), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab & Empl. § 5301 et seq. (ECF No. 21.) For the following reasons, the motion will be held in abeyance
pending submission of a revised, signed settlement agreement.
The Court initially reviewed the motion and the attached settlement agreement and found
a significant discrepancy in the amount of attorney’s fees between the two; consequently,
counsel were directed to submit a revised motion and/or settlement agreement for the Court’s
consideration. (Dec. 20, 2016, Letter Order, ECF No. 22.) The settlement agreement and the
motion’s supporting memorandum both say that Defendants will pay Plaintiff Castro the gross
sum of $15,682.50 in full settlement of her claims. (Sett. Agrmt., ECF No. 21-2; Mot. Supp.
Mem. (“Mot.”) 2, ECF No. 21-1.) However, the motion says the amount of $3,920.63 in
attorney’s fees and $315.00 in costs will be subtracted from the gross sum (Mot. 2-3), and the

settlement agreement says the amount of $5,227.50 in attorney’s fees will be deducted from the
gross sum (Sett. Agrmt. 1). The settlement agreement is silent with respect to costs. According
to the motion, Castro will receive $11,446.87 before taxes (Mot. 2); but according to the
settlement agreement, she will receive only $10,455.00 (Sett. Agrmt. 1).
In response to the Court’s directive, counsel have submitted a revised memorandum to
explain the discrepancy. (Rev. Mem., ECF No. 23.) Although the Court appreciates counsel’s
attempt to reassure the Court that the figures set forth in the Motion govern the settlement, and
the Court does not doubt counsel’s good intentions, it is nevertheless necessary for the agreement
signed by Plaintiff to match the representations made in the Motion. Once a correct, signed
settlement agreement has been docketed, the Court expects to grant the Motion as the agreement
is otherwise acceptable, as are the figures propounded in the Motion.
Counsel are directed to submit the foregoing by January 6, 2017.
DATED this 21st day of December, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

_____________/s/_____________________
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

2