Valdes v. MOJITO CLUB L.L.C. ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 1:19-cv-24885-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES YULIAN VALDES, and other similarly situated individuals, YEYNNIS FRESNEDA, and other similarly situated individuals, and RAUL VALDES, Plaintiffs, v. MOJITO CLUB L.L.C., a Florida Limited Liability Company, and HENRY A. LEACE, Defendants. ______________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 58] on the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Joint Motion”) [ECF No. 56]. The Joint Motion was referred to Judge Otazo-Reyes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for a Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 54]. On September 25, 2020, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report recommending that the Joint Motion be granted, and this action be dismissed with prejudice. Neither party filed timely objections. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Having reviewed the Report, the Court finds no clear error with and agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Joint Motion should be granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 58], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference; 2. The parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, [ECF No. 56], is GRANTED; 3. The FLSA Settlement Agreement, [ECF No. 56-1], is APPROVED; 4. Pursuant to the parties’ FLSA Settlement Agreement, [ECF No. 56-1], a total of $7,550.00 shall be paid in attorney’s fees and costs incurred in pursuing the litigation on behalf of Plaintiff Yulian Valdes; 5. Pursuant to the parties’ FLSA Settlement Agreement, [ECF No. 56-1], a total of $2,800.00 shall be paid in attorney’s fees and costs incurred in pursuing the litigation on behalf of Plaintiff Raul Valdes; 6. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice and all pending motions are DENIED as moot; and 7. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this case for thirty (30) days in order to enforce the terms of the FLSA Settlement Agreement. [ECF No. 56-1]. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 23rd day of October, 2020. DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTR JUDGE