Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

KING v. HOMEBANC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 2:06-cv-96-FtM-38CM. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20150604a44 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff Bradford T. King's Status Report on the Disbursed Settlement Funds ( Doc. #522 ) filed on April 20, 2015. On October 8, 2013, the Court gave preliminary approval to the Parties Settlement Agreement pending the final disbursement of funds ( Doc. #464 ). The Plaintiff has now informed the Court that all of the funds have been disbursed to the Opt-In Plaintiffs and all of the checks have cle
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff Bradford T. King's Status Report on the Disbursed Settlement Funds (Doc. #522) filed on April 20, 2015. On October 8, 2013, the Court gave preliminary approval to the Parties Settlement Agreement pending the final disbursement of funds (Doc. #464). The Plaintiff has now informed the Court that all of the funds have been disbursed to the Opt-In Plaintiffs and all of the checks have cleared. The Court previously found that the Settlement Agreement was a fair and reasonable settlement of a bona fide FLSA claim, therefore, the case may now be dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

The Plaintiff, Bradford T. King's Complaint on behalf of himself and others similarly situated is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any and all pending motions, and close the file.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
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