Ferman v. Livia Inc. et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 11/15/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
*
Maria Ferman
*
Plaintiff,
*
v.
Case No.: PX-16-2334
*
Livia, Inc., et. al
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Maria Ferman (Plaintiff) and Defendants Livia Inc., Enzo Livia and Sandra
Livia (collectively, “Defendants”), jointly move for approval of a settlement agreement. Plaintiff
filed this action alleging that Defendants denied her overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law
(“MWHL”), Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. Article (“LE”) § 3-401 et seq., and the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), Md. Code, LE § 3-501 et seq. ECF No. 1.
The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of
Settlement Agreement, and the Settlement Agreement and Release. ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9. For the
reasons explained below, the Court finds that bona fide disputes exist under the FLSA, the
settlement agreement is a fair and reasonable compromise of the disputes, and the attorney’s fees
are reasonable. See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir.
1982); Leigh v. Bottling Group, LLC, No. DKC 10-0218, 2012 WL 460468, at * 4 (D. Md. Feb.
10, 2012); Lopez v. NTI, LLC, 748 F. Supp. 2d 471, 478 (D. Md. 2010). Therefore, the Court will
GRANT the motion and instruct the clerk to close this case.
I. BACKGROUND
For nineteen years, Plaintiff Ferman worked for Defendants as an hourly employee in the
kitchen of Defendants’ restaurant, IL Pizzico. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 7-9. Plaintiff alleges that she was
denied overtime wages during this time period for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
work week. Id. ¶¶ 12-16. Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint on June 23, 2016. The parties
engaged in early and fruitful settlement negotiations. ECF No. 7-1 at 2. On September 15, 2016,
the parties submitted the Joint Motion for Settlement Approval. Id.
II. DISCUSSION
A. FLSA Settlements
The FLSA does not permit settlement or compromise over alleged FLSA violations
except with (1) supervision by the Secretary of Labor or (2) a judicial finding that the settlement
reflects “a reasonable compromise of disputed issues” rather than “a mere waiver of statutory
rights brought about by an employer’s overreaching.” Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d at
1354; see also Lopez, 748 F. Supp. 2d at 478 (explaining that courts assess FLSA settlements for
reasonableness). These restrictions help carry out the purpose of the FLSA, which was enacted
“to protect workers from the poor wages and long hours that can result from significant
inequalities in bargaining power between employers and employees.” Duprey v. Scotts Co. LLC,
30 F. Supp. 3d. 404, 407 (D. Md. 2014). Before approving an FLSA settlement, courts must
evaluate whether the “settlement proposed by an employer and employees . . . is a fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc.,
679 F.2d at 1355 (emphasis added). To do so, courts examine whether there are FLSA issues
actually in dispute, the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement, and the reasonableness of
the attorney’s fees. Duprey, 30 F. Supp. 3d at 408 (internal citations omitted). “These factors are
most likely to be satisfied where there is an ‘assurance of an adversarial context’ and the
employee is ‘represented by an attorney who can protect [his] rights under the statute.’” Id.
(citing Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d at 1354).
B. Bona Fide Dispute
In determining whether a bona fide dispute over FLSA liability exists, the Court reviews
the pleadings, any subsequent court filings, and the parties’ recitals in the proposed settlement.
See Lomascolo v. Parsons Brinkernoff, Inc., No. 1:08cv1310 (AJT/JFA), 2009 WL 3094955 at
*10 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2009). Here, the parties agree that bona fide disputes exist regarding the
extent of Plaintiff’s overtime and her hourly wage. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to overtime
wages as a covered employee under the FLSA is a fact-specific inquiry that is frequently at the
heart of FLSA litigation. See, e.g., Schultz v. Capital Int’l Sec., Inc., 466 F.3d 298 (4th Cir.
2006). Further, the parties also agree that bona fide disputes exist with regard to whether
Plaintiff’s claims are covered by the MWPCL. ECF No. 7-1 at 4. Accordingly, this factor is
satisfied.
C. Fairness & Reasonableness
In determining whether a settlement of FLSA claims is fair and reasonable, the
Court may consider the following:
(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 class counsel and class members after
receiving notice of the settlement whether expressed directly or
through failure to object; and (6) the probability of plaintiffs’
success on the merits and the amount of the settlement in relation
to the potential recovery.
Lomascolo, 2009 WL 3094955, at *10. Here, the parties exchanged quickly after suit informal
discovery and participated in prompt, efficient discussions. Id. at 5. Thus, the parties had
sufficient opportunity to “obtain and review evidence, to evaluate their claims and defenses[,]
and to engage in informed arms-length settlement negotiations with the understanding that it
would be a difficult and costly undertaking to proceed to trial of this case.” Lomascolo, 2009 WL
3094955 at *11.
No evidence suggests that the parties engaged in any fraud or collusion in the settlement.
Under the settlement agreement, Plaintiff will receive $12,890 including $3,890.00 in liquidated
damages above her base unpaid overtime wages. ECF No. 7-1, p. 3. This award amounts to
roughly 87.5% of the base overtime as calculated by Plaintiff (and 143.33% as calculated by
Defendants) after legal fees and costs. Id. at 4. “In light of the risks and costs associated with
proceeding further and Defendants’ potentially viable defenses, this amount appears to reflect a
reasonable compromise over issues actually in dispute.” Saman v. LBDP, Inc., No. DKC-121083, 2013 WL 2949047, at *5 (D. Md. June 13, 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks
and brackets omitted).
Finally, although the settlement agreement contains a general release of claims beyond
those in the Complaint, and a general release can render an FLSA settlement agreement
unreasonable, the Court is not required to evaluate the reasonableness of the settlement as it
relates to non-wage-dispute claims if the employee is compensated reasonably for the release
executed. Duprey, 30 F. Supp. 3d. at 410. Considering all of the above, the Court finds that the
proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.
D. Attorney’s Fees
Traditionally, “[i]n calculating an award of attorney’s fees, the Court must determine the
lodestar amount, defined as a ‘reasonable hourly rate multiplied by hours reasonably expended.’”
Lopez v. XTEL Const. Grp., LLC, 838 F. Supp. 2d 346, 348 (D. Md. 2012) (citing Grissom v. The
Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313, 320–21 (4th Cir. 2008) and Plyler v. Evatt, 902 F.2d 273, 277 (4th
Cir. 1990)). An hourly rate is reasonable if it is “in line with those prevailing in the community
for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Blum
v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). This Court has established rates that are
presumptively reasonable for lodestar calculations. See Loc. R. App. B.
Here, Plaintiff has been represented by Bruce Godfrey, Esq. ECF No. 7-2. Mr. Godfrey
has been admitted to the bar for twenty-two years and is experienced in this area. He has, to
date, worked 11.2 hours in this case and anticipates a final total of no fewer than 13 hours billed.
ECF No. 7-1, p. 5. The contingency fee negotiated apart from Plaintiff’s award is $4,500. Id.
For 13 hours of work, the attorney’s fees yield $346.15/hour, which is comfortably within the
hourly range adopted in Appendix B of this Court’s Local Rules. Accordingly, the fee is
presumptively reasonable. The Court, therefore, finds the attorney’s fees and costs (an additional
$610) to be fair and reasonable.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement is
GRANTED.
A separate Order shall issue.
Dated: November 15, 2016
/S/
PAULA XINIS
United States District Judge
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?