MAC R. MCCOY, Magistrate Judge.
This cause is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Reached at Mediation, and Dismiss Case with Prejudice (Doc. 69) and Settlement Agreement and Release (Doc. 69-1) filed on October 21, 2015. Plaintiffs Cheryl Bliss and Harold Kelsey together with Defendants ETM Tamiami, LLC, Angela Angelilli, Frank Angelilli, and Renaissance Marble Products, Inc. request that the Court approve the parties' settlement of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claim.
To approve the settlement of the FLSA claim, the Court must determine whether the settlement is a "fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute" of the claims raised pursuant to the FLSA. Lynn's Food Store, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982); 29 U.S.C. § 216. There are two ways for a claim under the FLSA to be settled or compromised. Id. at 1352-3. The first, under 29 U.S.C. § 216(c), provides for the Secretary of Labor to supervise payments of unpaid wages owed to employees. Id. at 1353. The second way, under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), is by a lawsuit brought by employees against their employer to recover back wages. Id. When employees file suit, the proposed settlement must be presented to the District Court for its review and determination that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Id. at 1353-54.
The Eleventh Circuit has found settlements to be permissible when the lawsuit is brought by employees under the FLSA for back wages because the lawsuit
Id. at 1354.
In this case, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime and minimum wages. (Doc. 69 at 1) (citing Doc. 16 at 6 ¶ 35). Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations and deny any liability. Id. Specifically, the parties contested FLSA coverage, whether Plaintiff Kelsey was an employee, the hours Plaintiffs worked, credits for board, lodging, and other facilities, and Defendants' willfulness. (Id. at 3-7). Additionally, Defendants asserted counterclaims of unjust enrichment against Plaintiffs. (Id. at 7). Based on these contentions, bona fide disputes exist in this case.
The parties agreed to settle this action to provide "finality." (Doc. 69 at 7-9). The parties indicate that the settlement allows everyone to "move on with their lives." Id. Additionally, the parties contend that the settlement is reasonable because it lessens the length and expense of litigation. (Id. at 8).
The total amount of the settlement, including attorneys' fees, is $100,000.00 plus the costs of mediation (approximately $3,000). (Id. at 2). Plaintiff Bliss will receive $12,750.00 representing unpaid wages, less appropriate withholdings, and $12,750.00 representing liquidated damages. Id. Plaintiff Kelsey will receive $12,750.00 representing unpaid wages, less appropriate withholdings, and $12,750.00 representing liquidated damages. The Court reviewed the Settlement Agreement and Release (Doc. 69-1) and finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are reasonable as to wages and liquidated damages.
Regarding attorneys' fees and costs, Defendants agreed to pay $49,000.00 representing Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in this action. (Doc. 69 at 2). As explained in Bonetti v. Embarq Management Company, "the best way to insure that no conflict [of interest between an attorney's economic interests and those of his client] has tainted the settlement is for the parties to reach agreement as to the plaintiff's recovery before the fees of the plaintiff's counsel are considered." 715 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1228 (M.D. Fla. 2009). The Court further stated that
Id.
In the present case, the amount of attorneys' fees was negotiated as a separate amount from the amount to be paid to Plaintiffs. (Doc. 69 at 2). Because attorneys' fees and costs were determined separately and apart from Plaintiffs' recovery, the Court finds that the settlement and attorneys' fees were agreed upon without compromising the amount paid to Plaintiffs.
Without contradictory evidence, the Settlement Agreement and Release (Doc. 69-1) appears reasonable on its face.
A party waives the right to challenge on appeal a finding of fact or conclusion of law adopted by the District Judge if the party fails to object to that finding or conclusion within fourteen days after issuance of the Report and Recommendation containing the finding or conclusion.