KEY v. FUGITT, 6:14-cv-39-BAE-JEG. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20141028e10
Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge. Plaintiff Ramie Key and Defendant Charles Fugitt have proposed that the Court enter a consent judgment on the terms of their settlement, ECF No. 12. District courts in this circuit are to approve only those settlements that "`[are] fair, adequate and reasonable and [are] not the product of collusion between the parties." Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982 , 986 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326 , 1330 (5th Cir. 1977))
Summary: ORDER B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge. Plaintiff Ramie Key and Defendant Charles Fugitt have proposed that the Court enter a consent judgment on the terms of their settlement, ECF No. 12. District courts in this circuit are to approve only those settlements that "`[are] fair, adequate and reasonable and [are] not the product of collusion between the parties." Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982 , 986 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326 , 1330 (5th Cir. 1977));..
More
ORDER
B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Ramie Key and Defendant Charles Fugitt have proposed that the Court enter a consent judgment on the terms of their settlement, ECF No. 12. District courts in this circuit are to approve only those settlements that "`[are] fair, adequate and reasonable and [are] not the product of collusion between the parties." Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982, 986 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (5th Cir. 1977)); see also In re Smith, 926 F.2d 1027, 1028-29 (11th Cir. 1991). On the meager record before it, the Court cannot find that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Therefore, the Court declines to approve a consent judgment. The parties' request for approval of the settlement and entry of the consent judgment, ECF No. 12, is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
