Garcia Garcia et al v. Uptown Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING 20 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and General Release and for Entry of Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice; APPROVING Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release and DISMISSING case WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 11/5/2014. (kns, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division

*
WAL TER OSWALDO GARCIA GARCIA,
et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated,

*
*

Plaintiffs,

Civil Case No.: PWG-14-129

v.

*
UPTOWN BAKE & BREW, LLC, et al.,

*
Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Walter Oswaldo Garcia Garcia, Ana Hernandez, Pedro Armando Garcia Felipe, Eva E.
Ruano Colindres, Jose Luis Flores Guardado, Alexander Marroquin, Jose A. Maldanado, Edgar
Sanchez Moanco,l and Oscar Oswaldo Ixrata filed this action against their former employers,
Uptown Holdings, LLC d/b/a Uptown Bakers, Uptown Bake & Brew, LLC d/b/a Uptown
Bakers, and Michael C. McCloud, seeking damages for Defendants' alleged failure to pay proper
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. SS 201219, and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl.

SS

3-

401 to 3-430. Before Defendants answered the complaint, the parties jointly moved for court
approval of the settlement agreement they have executed. Having reviewed the Complaint, ECF
NO.1, the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and General Release and

1 Plaintiffs Maldando and Moanco' s last names are spelled Maldonado and Molanco in the
parties' motion and the settlement agreement. Jt. Mot. 2; Sett. Agr. 1, ECF No. 20-2. Dina
Mariela Najera Navas, Anabely Amelia Navarro Lopez, Agustin Quiroz Aleluya and Belman
Salvatierra Hernandez have opted in and are parties to the settlement agreement. ECF Nos. 5 &
11. The Clerk is directed to add Agustin Quiroz Aleluya and Belman Salvatierra Hernandez as
parties.

for Entry of Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice and supporting memorandum, ECF Nos. 20
& 20-1, and the Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release, ECF No. 20-2, I find that bona
fide disputes exist regarding liability under the FLSA; the Confidential Settlement Agreement
and Release, including the amount that Plaintiffs will receive, is a fair and reasonable resolution
of those disputes; and the attorneys' fees are reasonable.
12-1083,2013

See Saman v. LBDP, Inc., No. DKC-

WL 2949047, at *2 (D. Md. June 13,2013); Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United

States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (1Ith Cir. 1982).
With regard to whether this settlement is fair and reasonable, I have evaluated several
factors, including
"(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' success on the merits and the amount of the settlement in
relation to the potential recovery."
Saman, 2013 WL 2949047, at *3 (quoting Lomascolo v. Parsons BrinckerhojJ, Inc., No. 081310, 2009 WL 3094955, at *10 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2009)).

I note that the Confidential

Settlement Agreement and Release contains a general release of claims beyond those specified in
the Complaint.
unreasonable.
(concluding

See Sett. Agr. ~ 3.

A general release like this can render the agreement

See: e.g., Moreno v. Regions Bank, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1352 (M.D. Fla. 2010)
that "a pervasive release in an FLSA settlement confers an uncompensated,

unevaluated, and unfair benefit on the employer" that "fails judicial scrutiny"); McKeen-Chaplin
v. Fanklin Am. Mortg. Co., No. 10-5243,2012

WL 6629608, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19,2012).

But, if the employee is compensated reasonably for the release executed, the settlement can be
accepted, and I am not required to evaluate the reasonableness of the settlement as to the nonFLSA claims. See Saman, 2013 WL 2949047, at *5 (citing Robertson v. Ther-Rx Corp., No. 092

1010-MHT, 2011 WL 1810193, at *2 (M.D. Ala. May 12,2011); Bright v. Mental Health Res.
etr., Inc., No. 09-1010, 2012 WL 868804, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2012)).
compensation

Plaintiffs'

under the Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release fairly compensates

them for the general release executed.
As for attorneys' fees, I observe that the parties' supporting memorandum reallocates the
compensation

among Plaintiffs and counsel.

The Confidential

Settlement Agreement

Release provided for a total payment to Plaintiffs of $54,722,58
$35,263.43.

The memorandum

and attorneys'

and

fees of

changes the total payment to Plaintiffs to $65,722.56 and

changes the attorneys' fees to $24,263.43 to "put Plaintiffs' attorney fees more closely in line
with Plaintiffs' lodestar."

Mem. 5 & 9-10.

I find attorneys' fees of $24,263.43 to be fair and

reasonable under the lodestar approach. See Lyle v. Food Lion, Inc., 954 F.2d 984, 988 (4th Cir.
1992).
Accordingly, it is, this~

day of ..)1~2014,

hereby ORDERED that

1. The parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and General Release
and for Entry of Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice, ECF No. 20, IS GRANTED;
2. The Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release, ECF No. 20-2, including the
attorneys'

fees provision,

memorandum,

Sett. Agr.

S

1.c, modified

such that the Plaintiffs will receive

as stated in the parties'
722.56 and counsel will

receive $24,263.43, Mem. 5 & 9, IS APPROVED;
3. This case IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

•......

Paul W. Grimm
United States District Judge
lyb

3