Reitzig v. Concepts to Operations, Inc. et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/7/2016. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
KENNETH REITZIG
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 16-1271
:
CONCEPTS TO OPERATIONS, INC.,
et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) case is the parties’ request to
approve their settlement as fair and reasonable.
(ECF No. 8).
Because the proposed settlement meets the applicable standards,
the settlement will be approved.
I.
Background
Plaintiff Kenneth Rietzig filed this complaint on April 28,
2016,
seeking
overtime
a
wages,
total
plus
of
$60,234.78
liquidated
in
damages
unpaid
under
regular
federal
and
law,
treble damages under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection
Law,
along
with
attorney’s
fees
and
costs.
(ECF
No.
1).
Plaintiff was employed by Concepts to Operations, Inc. from 2010
until January 12, 2016.
He alleges that he was paid $45 per
hour for all hours worked, and is due overtime in the total
amount
of
$6,750.
His
complaint
also
seeks
approximately
$13,000 in unpaid regular wages which are not covered by the
FLSA.
II.
Analysis
A.
Request to Approve Settlement
Because Congress enacted the FLSA to protect workers from
the poor wages and long hours that can result from significant
inequalities
in
bargaining
power
between
employers
and
employees, the statute’s provisions are mandatory and, except in
two
narrow
circumstances,
are
generally
not
subject
to
bargaining, waiver, or modification by contract or settlement.
See Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706 (1945).
First, the Secretary of Labor may supervise the payment of back
wages to employees, who waive their rights to seek liquidated
damages upon accepting the full amount of the wages owed.
29 U.S.C. § 216(c).
court
can
approve
employee
who
pursuant
to
reflects
a
has
See
Under the second exception, a district
a
settlement
brought
Section
“reasonable
a
between
private
216(b),
action
provided
compromise
an
of
employer
for
that
disputed
and
unpaid
the
an
wages
settlement
issues”
rather
than “a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an
employer’s overreaching.”
Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United
States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 1982).
submit
that,
because
Plaintiff
2
is
recovering
The parties
more
than
the
maximum for his FLSA claim, there has been no compromise and
thus
there
agreement.
is
no
need
to
address
the
reasonableness
of
the
Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the court,
like the parties, will address the relevant considerations.
Although the Fourth Circuit has not directly addressed the
factors to be considered in deciding motions for approval of
such
settlements,
district
courts
in
this
circuit
typically
employ the considerations set forth by the Eleventh Circuit in
Lynn’s Food Stores.
See, e.g., Hoffman v. First Student, Inc.,
No. WDQ-06-1882, 2010 WL 1176641, at *2 (D.Md. Mar. 23, 2010);
Lopez
v.
NTI,
LLC,
748
F.Supp.2d
471,
478
(D.Md.
2010).
Pursuant to Lynn’s Food Stores, an FLSA settlement generally
should
be
approved
if
it
reflects
“a
fair
and
reasonable
resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.”
Food, 679 F.2d at 1355.
Lynn’s
Thus, as a first step, the bona fides
of the parties’ dispute must be examined to determine if there
are FLSA issues that are “actually in dispute.”
Lane v. Ko-Me,
LLC, No. DKC-10-2261, 2011 WL 3880427, at *2 (D.Md. Aug. 31,
2011) (citing Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F.Supp.2d 1227, 124142 (M.D.Fla. 2010)).
Then, as a second step, the terms of the
proposed settlement agreement must be assessed for fairness and
reasonableness,
including:
which
requires
weighing
a
number
of
factors,
“(1) the extent of discovery that has taken place;
3
(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.”
Lomascolo
v.
Parsons
Brinckerhoff,
Inc., No. 08–cv–1310, 2009 WL 3094955, at *10 (E.D.Va. Sept. 28,
2009)
(collective
action);
see
also
Poulin
v.
Gen.
Dynamics
Shared Res., Inc., No. 09–cv–00058, 2010 WL 1813497, at *1 n.1
(W.D.Va. May 5, 2010) (applying the same factors to a settlement
that involved only individual FLSA claims).
“In deciding whether a bona fide dispute exists as to a
defendant’s
pleadings
in
liability
the
under
case,
the
along
FLSA,
with
the
courts
examine
the
representations
and
recitals in the proposed settlement agreement.”
Amaya v. Young
& Chang, Inc. Civil Case No. PWG-14-749, 2014 WL 3671569, at *2
(D.Md.
July
22,
2014).
scheduling order entered.
Here,
an
answer
was
filed
and
a
The parties undertook some formal
discovery before entering into the proposed agreement, and were
able to review records related to Plaintiff’s employment. The
pleadings, along with the parties’ joint submission regarding
4
settlement, establish that a
bona fide
dispute exists as to
Defendants’ liability under the FLSA for overtime payments.
Overall, the Settlement appears to be a fair and reasonable
compromise
of
the
parties’
bona
fide
dispute.
The
parties
agreed to settle at before the end of the discovery period, and
there is no evidence that the proposed Settlement is the product
of fraud or collusion.
The Settlement Agreement is the product
of negotiations between parties represented by counsel.
The
parties
report
the
overtime
wages
that
amount
sought
by
of
the
Plaintiff
settlement
in
her
exceeds
complaint.
The
Settlement resolves all disputes between the parties.
The
court
must
also
attorneys fee request.
assess
the
reasonableness
of
the
The information provided is very scant,
and, by itself, fails to provide the necessary information.
parties
only
represent
that
Plaintiff’s
counsel
spent
The
43.2
attorney hours and 6.4 paralegal hours and that all attorneys
have at least 6 years of experience.
hourly rate.
There is no mention of an
If the $10,000 is reduced by the costs of $518,
and the remainder divided by 49.6 hours, the average hourly rate
for attorney and paralegal work would be approximately $190.
In
another recent case, Plaintiff’s counsel were awarded fees at
$250 per hour, despite their request for $295 per hour.
Flores
Hernandez
v.
Hoge,
DKC
5
15-1988,
ECF
No.
9,
See,
2016
WL
2924918.
Based on the material submitted and referred to in
that case, the fee request in this case appears reasonable, both
as to the number of hours spent and the presumed fee range.
Accordingly, it will be approved.
III. Conclusion
Based
on
the
foregoing,
the
Settlement Agreement will be granted.
request
to
approve
A separate order will be
entered.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
6
the
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?