Yanes v. Accel Heating and Cooling, LLC et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 3/8/2017. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
*
Carlos Yanes

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

Case No.: PX-16-2573
*

ACCEL Heating & Cooling, LLC, et al.
*
Defendants.
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Carlos Yanes (Plaintiff) and Defendants ACCEL Heating and Cooling, LLC and
Edward Riley, Jr., (collectively, “Defendants”), jointly move for approval of a settlement
agreement. Plaintiff filed this action alleging that Defendants denied him overtime pay in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., 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 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14), the parties’ Joint Motion
for Approval of Settlement Agreement, and the Settlement Agreement and Release. ECF No. 18.
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.

1

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
Plaintiff Yanes worked for Defendants as a helper and technician from March 2009 to
February 2015. Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage during that time. ECF No. 14 at ¶¶ 24–25.
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied overtime wages during this time period for hours worked in
excess of forty hours per work week. Id. ¶ 39.
Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on July 14, 2016, styled as a class action. Plaintiff
then amended his complaint on September 23, 2016 to proceed on his own behalf only. The
parties engaged in early and fruitful settlement negotiations. ECF No. 18. On December 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

2

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 defendants expressly denied liability in response to
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and make no admissions of liability. 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). The Court further notes that the parties engaged in extensive settlement
negotiations where both sides vigorously contested the merits of the claims. 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
3

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 itemized invoice supporting the request for
attorney’s fees demonstrate that the parties exchanged discovery and participated in prompt,
efficient discussions. 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 in two installments a total of $3,649.78.
The first installment for $1,824.89 is for unpaid wages, and the second of equal amount is
liquidated damages. ECF No. 18 at 5. That this settlement is the product of a settlement
conference held with United States Magistrate Judge, Charles B. Day, gives this Court added
comfort that the settlement is fair and reasonable vis Plaintiff. This is especially so “[i]n 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-12-1083, 2013 WL 2949047, at *5 (D. Md. June 13,
2013) (citation and internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Additionally, 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

4

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 was represented by Joseph E. Spicer, of the Law Offices of Peter T.
Nicholl. ECF No. 14. Mr. Spicer has been admitted to the bar for over eighteen years and billed
in this case at a rate of $400 per hour for time spent on investigation, case preparation, and
settlement negotiations. The total amount in attorney’s fees accrued by Plaintiff’s counsel in this
litigation is $6,000. ECF No. 18 at 6. The remaining fees are associated with paralegal hours
spent in preparation of the case. Id. Although the fees in this case are more than double the
Plaintiff’s recovery, “attorneys’ fees awards may substantially exceed damages in FLSA cases.”
Atkins v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., No. PWG 14-1717, 2016 WL 3647610, at *6 (D. Md. June 30,
2016) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases). This is so because the
FLSA “is a civil rights statute” where attorneys’ fees substantially in excess of the award are not
unusual. Id.

5

Here, while the rate charged is at the high end of the range set forth in Appendix B of this
Court’s Local Rules, it is nonetheless presumptively reasonable. Plaintiffs’ counsel also reduced
his fees by more than 20%. Id. The Court, therefore, finds the attorney’s fees and costs (an
additional $510) to be fair and reasonable under the lodestar approach.
III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement is
GRANTED.
A separate Order shall issue.

Dated: March 8, 2017

/S/
PAULA XINIS
United States District Judge

6