DANIEL C. IRICK, District Judge.
This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the following motion:
Plaintiffs brought this purported collective action against Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Doc. 1. In conjunction with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Filing Consent to Join, attaching consents to join and to be represented by Plaintiffs' counsel by the named Plaintiff, Mario Cespedes, and two opt-in Plaintiffs, Brittaney Cespedes and Shandel Cole (collectively, Plaintiffs). Doc. 2.
The settlement of a claim for unpaid minimum or overtime wages under the FLSA may become enforceable by obtaining the Court's approval of the settlement agreement.
See Leverso v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., Nat'l Assoc., 18 F.3d 1527, 1531 n.6 (11th Cir. 1994). The Court may approve the settlement if it reflects a reasonable compromise of the FLSA claims that are actually in dispute. See Lynn's Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354. There is a strong presumption in favor of settlement. See Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977).
In addition to the foregoing factors, the Court must also consider the reasonableness of the attorney fees to be paid pursuant to the settlement agreement "to assure both that counsel is compensated adequately and that no conflict of interest taints the amount the wronged employee recovers under a settlement agreement." Silva v. Miller, 307 F. App'x 349, 351-52 (11th Cir. 2009).
According to the Motion, after Defendant was served counsel for Defendant contacted Plaintiffs' counsel concerning the claims. Doc. 12 at 4. The parties then "exchanged documents, prepared independent damage calculations and engaged in multiple email and telephonic conversations in an attempt to reach a resolution of this matter." Id. An issue in dispute is the application of the two or three year statute of limitations, and "Plaintiffs acknowledge that it may be difficult to establish the application of a three year statute of limitations. Defendant denies owing Plaintiffs any unpaid wages or liquidated damages whatsoever, whether under a two or three year statutory period." Id. Thus, after "numerous" negotiations, the parties agreed to the following resolution:
Id. at 5. Plaintiffs represent that the settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise of their FLSA claims, concerning which they assert there are bona fide disputes, such as the dispute concerning the applicable statute of limitations. Id. at 4-5. The undersigned finds that this is a fair and reasonable compromise based on the reasons articulated for compromising the claims under the FLSA. Therefore, the undersigned
Upon review of the Agreements, the undersigned finds that the Agreements do not contain a confidentiality provision, non-disparagement clause, or other potentially problematic contractual provision sometimes found in proposed FLSA settlement agreements. However, the Agreements do contain a general release. Doc. 12-1. General releases are generally disfavored by courts, as they are seen as affecting the fairness and reasonableness of an FLSA settlement. See, e.g., Menjiva v. E & L Const. Serv., LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-2057-Orl-31KRS, 2015 WL 3485991, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2015) (citing authority). Courts, however, have found such provisions permissible where plaintiff is provided separate consideration for such provisions. See, e.g., Roman v. FSC Clearwater, LLC, Case No. 6:16-cv-969-Orl-41DCI, 2017 WL 1653571, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2017) (recommending approval of settlement agreement providing $100.00 as separate consideration for a general release) report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 1552304 (M.D. Fla. May 1, 2017). Here, Plaintiffs are represented by counsel and have agreed to mutual general releases in exchange for payments of $100.00 each. Doc. 12-1. Accordingly, it is
Plaintiffs' counsel will receive a total of $5,500.00 in attorney fees and costs for representing Plaintiffs in this case. Doc. 12. Plaintiffs represent that "the amount set aside for attorneys' fees and costs was negotiated and agreed upon separately and without regard to the amounts paid to Plaintiffs." Doc. 12 at 5. The settlement is reasonable to the extent previously discussed, and Plaintiffs' foregoing statement adequately establishes that the issue of attorney fees and costs was agreed upon separately and without regard to the amount paid to Plaintiffs. See Bonetti, 715 F. Supp. 2d at 1228. Therefore, the undersigned
Accordingly, it is respectfully
A party has fourteen days from this date to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation's factual findings and legal conclusions. A party's failure to file written objections waives that party's right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or legal conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and Recommendation. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.