Grubbs v. D & S Residential Services, LP

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: the Court GRANTS the motion (Doc. 37 ) and hereby: 1. APPROVES the settlement agreement for an amount of $6,602.00 payable to Plaintiff; 2. AWARDS reasonable attorney's fees and expenses to Plaintiffs counsel in the amount of $898.00; and 3. DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 6/3/2021. (BJL)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE TERESA GRUBBS, Plaintiff, v. D & S RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LP, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:20-cv-75 Judge Travis R. McDonough Magistrate Judge Cynthia R. Wyrick MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for approval of settlement of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) (Doc. 37). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this action on April 7, 2020, alleging that Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to adequately compensate her for the hours she worked while employed by Defendant. (See Doc. 1, at 2, 4–8.) The parties have now settled their dispute and filed their settlement agreement with the Court. (See Doc. 37-1.) Defendant agrees to pay Plaintiff a total of $7,500.00 to resolve her claims—$6,602.00 paid directly to Plaintiff and $898.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 37-1, at 1.) Pursuant to the agreement, Plaintiff will release all claims related to this dispute against Defendant. (Id. at 2.) II. STANDARD OF REVIEW In reviewing an FLSA settlement, courts scrutinize the proposed settlement to determine whether the settlement is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Thompson v. United Stone, LLC, No. 1:14-CV-224, 2015 WL 867988, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 2, 2015) (citing Lynn’s Food Store, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982)). An award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiff’s counsel must be “reasonable under the circumstances.” Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Props., Inc., 9 F.3d 513, 516 (6th Cir. 1993). The Court “must make sure that counsel is fairly compensated for the amount of work done as well as for the results achieved.” Id. Two methods may be used, the percentage-of-the-fund method and the lodestar method, and the Court must consider which method is more appropriate for the particular case. Id. The lodestar method calculates the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate, while the percentage-of-the-fund method better accounts for the attorneys’ success. Id. Courts often also consider the following factors: “(1) the value of the benefit rendered to the plaintiff class; (2) the value of the services on an hourly basis; (3) whether the services were undertaken on a contingent fee basis; (4) society’s stake in rewarding attorneys who produce such benefits in order to maintain an incentive to others; (5) the complexity of the litigation; and (6) the professional skill and standing of counsel involved on both sides.” Moulton v. U.S. Steel Corp., 581 F.3d 344, 352 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc., 102 F.3d 777, 780 (6th Cir. 1996)). III. ANALYSIS The Court FINDS that the proposed settlement payment of $6,602.00 to Plaintiff is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. The Court further FINDS that attorney’s fees and costs of $898.00 are reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly, the motion (Doc. 37) is GRANTED, and the settlement agreement (Doc. 37-1) is APPROVED. 2 The Court will DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE this action. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS the motion (Doc. 37) and hereby: 1. APPROVES the settlement agreement for an amount of $6,602.00 payable to Plaintiff; 2. AWARDS reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $898.00; and 3. DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER. /s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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?