REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

THOMAS E. MORRIS, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the parties' Second Joint Motion for Approval of Revised Settlement Agreement, and for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 23), filed July 19, 2013.2 This case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") 29 U.S.C. § 201, et. seq. The parties have reached a settlement agreement and seek court approval of that agreement.

In Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-1355 (11th Cir. 1982), the Eleventh Circuit explained that claims for back wages under the FLSA may only be settled or compromised when the Department of Labor supervises the payment of back wages or when the district court enters a stipulated judgment "after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness." Before approving an FLSA settlement, the court must review it to determine if it is "a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute." Id. at 1354-55. If the settlement reflects a reasonable compromise over issues that are actually in dispute, the Court may approve the settlement "in order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation." Id. at 1354.

Having reviewed the revised settlement agreement, the Court finds that it is a fair and reasonable compromise of a bona fide dispute between parties represented by competent counsel. See id. at 1354-55. The Court further finds that the agreed-upon fee and costs to be paid to Plaintiff's counsel was determined independently, did not affect the payment to Plaintiff, and otherwise appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the Court need not separately consider the reasonableness of the fee to be paid to Plaintiff's counsel. See Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., 715 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1228 (M.D. Fla. 2009) ("[I]f the parties submit a proposed FLSA settlement that, (1) constitutes a compromise of the plaintiff's claims; (2) makes 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."); see also Hernandez v. Avalon Grp. Se., LLC, No. 6:12-cv-99-Orl-22TBS, 2012 WL 4052351, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2012), adopted at 2012 WL 4052345 (finding the amount of fees agreed upon by the parties "within the range of reason" without documentation or testimonial support); King v. My Online Neighborhood, Inc., No. 6:06-cv-435-Orl-22JGG, 2007 WL 737575, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2007) ("[A]n in depth analysis [of the reasonableness of attorneys fees] is not necessary unless the unreasonableness is apparent from the face of the documents.").

Accordingly, after due consideration, it is respectfully

RECOMMENDED:

The parties' Second Joint Motion for Approval of Revised Settlement Agreement, and for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 23) should be GRANTED and the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 23-1) should be APPROVED by the District Court. It is further respectfully recommended the case should be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the agreement of the Parties and the Clerk should be directed to close the file.

DONE AND ENTERED.