Drennan v. RH Funding Co., 6:19-cv-955-Orl-41DCI. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20191220c87
Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER CARLOS E. MENDOZA , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement ("Motion," Doc. 24), wherein the parties seek approval from the Court of a Settlement Agreement (Doc. 24-1) governing the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims that form the basis of this case. United States Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R," Doc. 25), finding that "the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of
Summary: ORDER CARLOS E. MENDOZA , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement ("Motion," Doc. 24), wherein the parties seek approval from the Court of a Settlement Agreement (Doc. 24-1) governing the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims that form the basis of this case. United States Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R," Doc. 25), finding that "the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of P..
More
ORDER
CARLOS E. MENDOZA, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement ("Motion," Doc. 24), wherein the parties seek approval from the Court of a Settlement Agreement (Doc. 24-1) governing the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims that form the basis of this case. United States Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R," Doc. 25), finding that "the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of Plaintiff's FLSA claim," (id. at 3), and the amount of attorney's fees and costs to be paid to Plaintiff's counsel to be reasonable and negotiated separately, without regard to the amount paid to Plaintiff for the FLSA claims, (id. at 4). Judge Irick therefore recommends that the Motion be granted, the Settlement Agreement be approved, and the case be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Objection (Doc. 26). Defendants did not file any objections, and the time to do so has passed.
After a de novo review of the record, this Court agrees entirely with the analysis in the R&R. Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.
2. The Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Doc. 24) is GRANTED.
3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
4. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
