ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff, Kim Alberto and the Defendant, FM Hotel/Office Ventures' Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. #26) filed on January 14, 2015. It is clear under prevailing law that, ordinarily, entry of a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation is self-executing and divests the district court of jurisdiction. See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.2012). But, despite the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal's discussion of stipulated dismissals in Anago Franchising, the express terms of Rule 41(a)(1) recognize that its self-executing nature is subject to "any applicable federal statute." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A); See Appleby v. Hickman Const., Inc., 2013 WL 1197758, *1 (N.D. Fla. March 25, 2013) (denying stipulated dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) because an FLSA settlement agreement must be reviewed for fairness under Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982)). The Eleventh Circuit has plainly stated that the FLSA's provisions are mandatory and are not subject to negotiation or bargaining between employers and employees. See Lynn's Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1352-53.

The Eleventh Circuit explained in Lynn's Food Stores that the rights under the FLSA "cannot be abridged by contract or otherwise waived," Id. at 1352 (internal marks omitted), and, aside from a payment supervised by the Secretary of Labor, an FLSA claim can be settled or compromised only by court approval after "scrutinizing the settlement for fairness," Id. at 1353. Where the parties stipulate to dismissal without prejudice, the plaintiff is not foreclosed from refiling any FLSA claim at a later time, and thus, such a stipulated dismissal remains self-executing without contravening the FLSA. See PerezNunez v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 609 F.Supp.2d 1319, 1320-21 (S.D. Fla. 2009). But, the FLSA's requirements regarding the compromise of an FLSA claim in the context of a suit brought by an employee dictate that where the parties seek dismissal of an FLSA claim with prejudice, the court must be satisfied that any compromise of FLSA rights is fair and reasonable. If the parties wish to have the employee's case dismissed with prejudice, they must demonstrate that no compromise occurred or present the court with a proposed settlement for a review of whether it is reasonable and fair under the standards set forth in Lynn's Food Stores. Therefore, the operation of Rule 41 is subject to the terms of the FLSA. Appleby, 2013 WL 1197758, at *1.

Here, nothing was submitted by the Parties that either no compromise occurred or that any such compromise is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, dismissal under Rule 41 does not end the matter, because without the Court's approval pursuant to Lynn's Food Stores, the release of the FLSA claim would be unenforceable. Appleby, 2013 WL 1197758, at *1. As such, the parties are required to provide the Court with sufficient information regarding the settlement in order for the Court to determine whether the settlement is a "fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute" over FLSA issues. Lynn's Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354-55.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

The Plaintiff, Kim Alberto and the Defendant, FM Hotel/Office Ventures' Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. #26) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.