Filed: Aug. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 17, 2017
Summary: FINDINGS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) & (C) JOHN E. MARTIN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on a Joint Motion to Approve Confidential General Release and Settlement Agreement [DE 34], filed by Defendant on June 9, 2017. In the instant Motion, the parties request that the Court approve the Confidential General Release and Settlement Agreement filed the same day. Previously, the parties had filed a motion
Summary: FINDINGS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) & (C) JOHN E. MARTIN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on a Joint Motion to Approve Confidential General Release and Settlement Agreement [DE 34], filed by Defendant on June 9, 2017. In the instant Motion, the parties request that the Court approve the Confidential General Release and Settlement Agreement filed the same day. Previously, the parties had filed a motion ..
More
FINDINGS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C)
JOHN E. MARTIN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a Joint Motion to Approve Confidential General Release and Settlement Agreement [DE 34], filed by Defendant on June 9, 2017. In the instant Motion, the parties request that the Court approve the Confidential General Release and Settlement Agreement filed the same day. Previously, the parties had filed a motion to seal that Settlement Agreement. On July 6, 2017, the Court denied the motion to seal and gave the parties an opportunity to withdraw the Settlement Agreement and the instant Motion if they did not wish the Settlement Agreement to be unsealed. They have not filed a motion to withdraw and the time to do so has passed.
On July 24, 2017, District Court Judge Rudy Lozano entered an Order [DE 40] referring the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation on the instant motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Having considered the instant Motion and the Settlement Agreement entered into by Defendant Dashka Vyas and Plaintiffs Zayda Razon, Michaela Rice, Candace Hill, and Gwenell White, the Court hereby finds as follows:
1. Plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that they are due allegedly unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
2. Plaintiffs' claims raised disputed issues of law and fact.
3. The parties have now finalized and entered into a Settlement Agreement with respect to Plaintiffs' claims.
4. The Settlement Agreement has been presented to this Court for review and approval under the FLSA. See, e.g., Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982).
5. Upon review, the Court concludes the parties' proposed settlement agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under the FLSA and is not a "mere waiver of statutory rights." Buckholder v. City of Ft. Wayne, 750 F.Supp.2d 990, 995 (N.D. Ind. 2010).
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT the Joint Motion to Approve Confidential General Release and Settlement Agreement [DE 34]; APPROVE the terms of the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, appropriate, and in accordance with law; and ORDER the parties to carry out the terms of the Settlement Agreement promptly and in good faith, and to file with the Court a Stipulation of Dismissal on or before September 7, 2017.
The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to publish to the public docket the Confidential General Release and Settlement Agreement [DE 35].
This Report and Recommendation is submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Recommendation to file written objections thereto with the Clerk of Court. The failure to file a timely objection will result in the waiver of the right to challenge this Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999); Hunger v. Leininger, 15 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 1994); Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corp., 882 F.2d 258, 260-261 (7th Cir. 1989).
SO ORDERED.
