Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cohn v. Rotor Holdings, Inc., 2:17-cv-438-FtM-38CM. (2018)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20180328b10 Visitors: 1
Filed: Mar. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on review of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 24). Judge Mirando recommends (1) granting Plaintiff Brittany Cohn's Second Motion to Approve Settlement (Doc. 23); (2) striking paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement and Release that discusses sealing and voluntarily dismissing this case (Doc. 23-1 at 3); and (3) striking the words "and confidentiality agreem
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on review of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 24). Judge Mirando recommends (1) granting Plaintiff Brittany Cohn's Second Motion to Approve Settlement (Doc. 23); (2) striking paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement and Release that discusses sealing and voluntarily dismissing this case (Doc. 23-1 at ¶ 3); and (3) striking the words "and confidentiality agreement" in the first paragraph of the parties' Addendum to Settlement Agreement (Doc. 23-2 at 1) and finding a confidentiality agreement to be neither permissible nor part of the approved settlement. (Doc. 24). No party objects to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has expired. This matter is ripe for review.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id. And "[t]he judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.

After examining the file independently, and upon carefully considering Judge Mirando's findings and recommendations, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated in this Order.

1. Plaintiff Brittany Cohn's Second Motion to Approve Settlement (Doc. 23) is GRANTED and the Settlement Agreement and Release (Doc. 23-1) and Addendum (Doc. 23-2) are APPROVED, consistent with this Order, as a fair and reasonable resolution of the bona fide FLSA dispute. 2. The following provision is STRICKEN from the Settlement Agreement and Release (Doc. 23-1 at ¶ 3): Ms. Cohn Promises. Ms. Cohn instructs and authorizes her attorney of record to immediately file on or before September 28, 2017 in the aforementioned lawsuit a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice against all parties. Ms. Cohn further instructs her attorney to file a motion with the court to seal this lawsuit as the lawsuit is frivolously and improper. Ms. Cohn further understands, acknowledges, agrees and instructs her attorney that neither her attorney nor Ms. Cohn shall hold the Company liable for any and all attorney fees or court costs that Ms. Cohn or her attorney incurred during this lawsuit. 3. The words "and confidentiality agreement" is STRICKEN from the first paragraph of the parties' Addendum to Settlement Agreement (Doc. 23-2 at 1) and a confidentiality agreement is not part of the approved settlement agreement and is not permissible. 4. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending deadlines and motions, and close the file.

DONE and ORDERD.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. 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 websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. 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