Holmes v. Swissport Fueling, Inc., 2:16-cv-669-FtM-38MRM. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20190327c22
Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 115). Judge McCoy recommends the following: • granting the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement (Doc. 105) and approving their settlement; • dismissing this action with prejudice as to Plaintiff Ethan Holmes and Opt-In Plaintiffs Brandon Buchanon, James Gant, Giovanni Rodriguez, Kalyn Lady, Kevin Kilmartin, and Jalen
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 115). Judge McCoy recommends the following: • granting the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement (Doc. 105) and approving their settlement; • dismissing this action with prejudice as to Plaintiff Ethan Holmes and Opt-In Plaintiffs Brandon Buchanon, James Gant, Giovanni Rodriguez, Kalyn Lady, Kevin Kilmartin, and Jalen ..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 115). Judge McCoy recommends the following:
• granting the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement (Doc. 105) and approving their settlement;
• dismissing this action with prejudice as to Plaintiff Ethan Holmes and Opt-In Plaintiffs Brandon Buchanon, James Gant, Giovanni Rodriguez, Kalyn Lady, Kevin Kilmartin, and Jalen Edwards; and
• dismissing this action without prejudice as to Opt-In Plaintiffs Carlos Diaz, Bradley Alderson, Richard Hagerty, and Francisco Ortiz.
No party objects to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has expired. The Report and Recommendation is thus ripe for review.
A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id. And "[t]he judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
After examining the file independently, and upon considering Judge McCoy's findings and recommendations, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 115) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein.
a. The Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement (Doc. 105) is GRANTED.
b. The Settlement Agreement and Acknowledgment and General Release (Docs. 105-1, 112, 113) are APPROVED as a "fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute" of the parties' FLSA issues.
(2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
a. DISMISS this action with prejudice as to Plaintiff Ethan Holmes and Opt-In Plaintiffs Brandon Buchanon, James Gant, Giovanni Rodriguez, Kalyn Lady, Kevin Kilmartin, and Jalen Edwards;
b. DISMISS this action without prejudice as to Opt-In Plaintiffs Carlos Diaz, Bradley Alderson, Richard Hagerty, and Francisco Ortiz; and
c. terminate all pending motions and close the file.
(3) The funds allocated to Richard Hagerty and Francisco Ortiz in the Settlement Agreement remain with Swissport Fueling.
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
Source: Leagle
