Lopez v. Cano Health LLC ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 21-cv-23266-WILLIAMS/MCALILEY ALEXIS LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. CANO HEALTH, LLC and MARLOW HERNANDEZ, Defendants. ________________________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This action arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C § 201, et. seq. (“FLSA”). The parties reached a settlement of this action, and they filed a Joint Motion for Approval of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and for Dismissal with Prejudice. (ECF No. 18). The Honorable Kathleen Williams referred the matter to me to determine whether the parties’ compromise is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982). This review requires the Court to also determine whether the amount of the settlement designated as fees for Plaintiff’s counsel is reasonable. Silva v. Miller, 307 Fed. Appx. 349, 351 (11th Cir. 2009). The parties attached to their Motion a copy of their final executed settlement agreement, which I reviewed. The settlement agreement provides that Defendants will pay Plaintiff $700 in unpaid wages and $700 in liquidated damages, for a total payment of $1,400. (ECF No. 18-1 at 3). In his Statement of Claim, Plaintiff claimed he was owed $2,703 in unpaid wages, and he claimed entitlement to liquidated damages in the same amount. (ECF No. 12 at 2). In their Response, Defendant advised that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Cano Health for five weeks less than Plaintiff had calculated, which necessarily reduced Plaintiff’s claim to $1,908 in unpaid wages. (ECF No. 18). Given the uncertainty of Plaintiff’s recovery, see (Joint Motion, ECF No. 18), I concur with the parties that Plaintiff’s recovery of $1,400 – which is a sizable portion of the $1,908 of revised unpaid wages – is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d at 1353. The settlement agreement provides that Defendants will pay Plaintiff’s counsel $3,600 as compensation for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 18-1 at 3). At my direction, Plaintiff’s counsel filed their billing records, (ECF Nos. 19, 20), which I reviewed. I consider the hourly billing rates of counsel and the paralegal, to be high (Brian Pollack, Esq. $450/hour; Toussaint Cummings, Esq. $350/hour; Estefania Mare, paralegal, $150/hour). I need not address that here, as the total attorneys’ fees invoiced ($5,050), plus the invoiced costs ($537) considerably exceed the negotiated attorneys’ fees of $3,600. I therefore find that the amount of the settlement allocated to Plaintiff’s counsel for fees is reasonable. Last, the parties ask the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. The agreement provides that Defendant shall make full payment to Plaintiff’s counsel within ten business days of the Court’s approval of the settlement agreement. (ECF No. 18-1 at 3). I believe that a thirty-day period is adequate for this Court to retain jurisdiction, as the parties will know, within ten business days, whether Defendants have failed to meet their obligation for payment. Accordingly, I RESPECTFULLY RECOMMEND that the Court approve the Settlement Agreement, dismiss this action with prejudice, retain jurisdiction for a period of thirty (30) calendar days, and instruct the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case. No later than three (3) business days from the date of this Report and Recommendation the parties may file any written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the Honorable Kathleen M. Williams, who is obligated to make a de novo review of only those factual findings and legal conclusions that are the subject of objections. Only those objected-to factual findings and legal conclusions may be reviewed on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016). DONE and RECOMMENDED in Miami, Florida this 6th day of December 2021. CHRIS McALILEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE