Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

FARNHAM v. ALLIED STAFF AUGMENTATION PARTNERS, INC., 8:14-cv-1323-T-33AEP. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20140804e07 Visitors: 20
Filed: Aug. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 04, 2014
Summary: ORDER VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court pursuant to the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Dismiss Case With Prejudice (Doc. #20), which was filed on August 4, 2014. The Court grants the Motion. I. Background Janet Farnham filed a complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Allied Staff Augmentation Partners, Inc., Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Richard Barns, Lynn Good, and Jennifer Weber in state court on May 1
More

ORDER

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court pursuant to the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Dismiss Case With Prejudice (Doc. #20), which was filed on August 4, 2014. The Court grants the Motion.

I. Background

Janet Farnham filed a complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Allied Staff Augmentation Partners, Inc., Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Richard Barns, Lynn Good, and Jennifer Weber in state court on May 13, 2014. (Doc. #2). Defendants removed the action on June 4, 2014, invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. #1). On June 6, 2014, the Court issued its FLSA Scheduling Order. (Doc. # 4).

On July 9, 2014, Defendants filed their Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants to File Responses to Plaintiff's Complaint and Defendants' Request for Court-Ordered Mediation. (Doc. #13). The Court extended the deadline for Defendants' response to the Complaint and set a hearing to determine whether Court-Ordered Mediation was appropriate as requested in the Motion. (Doc. #14). At the hearing, held on July 18, 2014, the parties notified the Court that they reached a settlement and discussed the terms of the settlement. (Doc. #16). The Court directed the parties to file a Motion for Court Approval of the Settlement by August 4, 2014. (Doc. #17). The parties' timely filed Motion is now before the Court. The parties request Court approval of the settlement reached and seek the dismissal of the action with prejudice. (Doc. #20).

II. Analysis

Farnham alleges that Defendants violated the terms of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, any settlement reached between the parties is subject to judicial scrutiny. See Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982). The parties have reached a settlement wherein it is agreed that Farnham will receive $14,255.80 for unpaid wages and overtime and $14,255.80 in liquidated damages. Farnham's counsel will receive $13,250.00 in attorneys' fees and costs.

In the Motion, the parties represent that the attorneys' fees to be paid to Farnham's counsel were negotiated by the parties separately from the amount to be paid to Farnham for FLSA violations. (Doc. #20 at 2). Pursuant to Bonetti v. Embarq Management Company, 715 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1228 (M.D. Fla. 2009) and other governing law, the Court approves the compromise reached by the parties in an effort to amicably settle this case.1 The settlement is fair on its face and represents a reasonable compromise of the parties' dispute. The Court dismisses the case with prejudice.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

(1) The parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Dismiss Case With Prejudice (Doc. #20) is GRANTED.

(2) The parties' settlement is approved. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

(3) The Clerk is directed to close the case.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. In Bonetti, the court explained: "if the parties submit a proposed FLSA settlement that, (1) constitutes a compromise of the plaintiff's claims; (2) makes a full and adequate disclosure of the terms of settlement, including the factors and reasons considered in reaching same and justifying the compromise of the plaintiff's claims; and (3) represents that the plaintiff's attorneys' fee was agreed upon separately and without regard to the amount paid to the plaintiff, then, unless the settlement does not appear reasonable on its face or there is reason to believe that the plaintiff's recovery was adversely affected by the amount of fees paid to his attorney, the Court will approve the settlement without separately considering the reasonableness of the fee to be paid to plaintiff's counsel." 715 F. Supp. 2d at 1228.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer