Elise v. 3D Living & Home Services, Inc. ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 20-cv-60067-BLOOM/Valle RACHELLE ELISE, Plaintiff, v. 3D LIVING & HOME SERVICES, INC., and LORNA DUKES, Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the parties’ renewed Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice, ECF No. [26], filed on July 20, 2020. The parties seek the Court’s approval of a proposed FLSA Agreement (“Renewed Agreement”), ECF No. [26-1], which includes the award of attorney’s fees. The Court previously denied the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Dismiss with Prejudice, ECF No. [24], because it failed to account for liquidated damages or adequately describe the basis for attorney’s fees. See July 16, 2020 Order. The renewed Joint Motion is accompanied by a ledger, see ECF No. [26-2], detailing the basis for attorney’s fees. Regarding liquidated damages, the parties “vigorously dispute the merits of Plaintiff’s claims[,]” Mot. 4, and explain “[t]he proposed settlement includes a payment of $1,908.00 for alleged overtime pay, but no liquidated damages since Defendants’ documentation, including an independent contractor agreement and the job duties of Plaintiff, would likely prevent a willful finding” id. 5. Case No. 20-cv-60067-BLOOM/Valle “[I]|f a court determines that a bona fide dispute between the parties exists as to violation of or entitlement to relief under the FLSA, it may approve a settlement which embodies a fair and reasonable resolution of the plaintiff's FLSA rights and claims — including the right to liquidated damages. Padilla vy. KB Int’l Trading Corp., No. 17-cv-61191, 2017 WL 8075327, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2017); see also Eiland v. U.S. Walls, LLC, 2015 WL 478372, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2015) (“Here, the parties represent that [the d]efendant disputes whether there has been a violation of the FLSA, and thus whether [the plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages. Accordingly, to the extent the settlement amount does not include liquidated damages, Plaintiffs decision not to pursue liquidated damages does not render the Agreement unfair or unreasonable.”’) Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The parties’ renewed Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice, ECF No. [26] is GRANTED. 2. The Renewed Agreement, ECF No. [26-1], is APPROVED in its entirety. 3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees except as otherwise agreed. 4. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 5. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Agreement. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 21, 2020. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record