SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 20-CV-61415-SMITH/VALLE

LAUREN RAND,

Plaintiff, v. AOV 9/21/20

RICHARD C. MAURAN, AND CHRSTINA MICEVIC,

Defendants. /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and for Dismissal with Prejudice (ECF No. 7) (the “Motion”). U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith has referred this matter to the undersigned for “consideration of the Motion.’” (ECF No. 8). This case includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for alleged violations of the statutory minimum wage and overtime provisions. See

et seq.; (ECF No. 1). On July 20, 2020, the parties filed the instant Motion.1 Before the Court can dismiss this case and approve a settlement of the FLSA claims, the court must scrutinize the settlement and determine that it is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States,

, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982). In doing so, courts consider various factors, including: (1) the possible existence of collusion behind the settlement; (2) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the probability of the

1 Although the Settlement Agreement contains a confidentiality provision, it was filed as part of the Motion. See (ECF No. 7-1). See Leverso v. S. Trust Bank of Ala. Nat. Assoc.,

, 1531 n.6 (11th Cir. 1994); see also McHone v. Donald P. Hoekstra Plumbing, Inc., No. 10-CV-60322,

, at *1 (S.D.

Fla. Nov. 4, 2010); Dees v. Hydradry, Inc.,

(M.D. Fla. 2010). In the end, if the settlement reflects a reasonable compromise over FLSA issues that are actually in dispute, the court may approve the settlement “to promote the policy of encouraging settlement in litigation.” Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354. Here, the parties have filed the FLSA Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) seeking Court approval. The Court has scrutinized the terms of the Settlement Agreement and considered the above factors, the overall strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ respective positions, and the parties’ desire to resolve this case sooner rather than later to avoid the costs and uncertainty of litigation. The Court also considered that Plaintiff’s claims were disputed as to liability and amount and that all parties were represented by counsel. Lastly, the Settlement Agreement specifies the

portion of the settlement amount to be paid to Plaintiff and the amounts designated for attorney’s fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide FLSA dispute. In addition, along with the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff’s counsel has provided its billing records via email. The Court considered “the reasonableness of [Plaintiff’s] counsel’s legal fees to assure both that counsel is compensated adequately and that no conflict of interest taints the amount the wronged employee recovers under a settlement agreement.” Silva v. Miller,

(11th Cir. 2009). Having done so, the Court finds that the amount of the settlement proceeds attributable to Plaintiff’s counsel’s legal fees is reasonable.

2 RECOMMENDATION Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully recommends as follows: (i) the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and for Dismissal with Prejudice (ECF No. 7) be GRANTED and the parties’ Settlement Agreement should be APPROVED; Gi) this case should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own fees and costs except as otherwise set forth in the Settlement Agreement; (ii) the Court should retain jurisdiction through November 30, 2020 to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Within seven (7) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district.

(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. J. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2020); see Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on September 21, 2020.

ALICIA O. VALLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: All Counsel of record