Hunsinger v. Anderson-Collins, Inc. et al, No. 6:2008cv00477 - Document 26 (M.D. Fla. 2009)
Court Description: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION to grant 25 MOTION for Final judgment pursuant to Rule 68(a) filed by Jane Buck. Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Baker on 3/4/2009. (EC1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hunsinger v. Anderson-Collins, Inc. et al Doc. 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION JANE BUCK, Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 6:08-cv-477-Orl-35DAB ANDERSON-COLLINS, INC., f/k/a Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., COLLINS & COLLINS, d/b/a CCC Racing, JACK COLLINS, JR., Defendants. ______________________________________ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEFENDANTS’ OFFER OF JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER OF JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 25) FILED: February 6, 2009 _____________________________________________________________ THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be GRANTED. This cause came on for consideration upon referral by the District Judge to determine whether the settlement is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute” over FLSA issues. See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 1982). If a settlement is not one supervised by the Department of Labor, the only other route for compromise of FLSA Dockets.Justia.com claims is provided in the context of suits brought directly by employees against their employer under section 216(b) to recover back wages for FLSA violations. “When employees bring a private action for back wages under the FLSA, and present to the district court a proposed settlement, the district court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Id. at 1353 (citing Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 66 S.Ct. 925, 928 n.8, 90 L.Ed. 1114). The Eleventh Circuit has held that “[s]ettlements may be permissible in the context of a suit brought by employees under the FLSA for back wages because initiation of the action by the employees provides some assurance of an adversarial context.” Id. at 1354. In adversarial cases: The employees are likely to be represented by an attorney who can protect their rights under the statute. Thus, when the parties submit a settlement to the court for approval, the settlement is more likely to reflect a reasonable compromise of disputed issues than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer’s overreaching. If a settlement in an employee FLSA suit does reflect a reasonable compromise over issues, such as FLSA coverage or computation of back wages, that are actually in dispute; we allow the district court to approve the settlement in order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation. Id. Plaintiff accepted Defendants’ offer of judgment for $10,836.84 on January 27, 2009. Doc. No. 25-3. Based on Plaintiff’s Responses to Court Interrogatories, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a security guard, making $6.79 per hour; she alleges that she was not paid time and one-half for an average of 12 hours per week from January 12, 2005 to October 2007, and she alleged that she was owed $5,418.42 in overtime wages and $5,418.42 in liquidated damages for a total of $10,836.84. Doc. No. 12. Defendants contended that they were exempt from the requirements of the FLSA, and continued to deny liability. Doc. No. 14. The offer of judgment to Plaintiff of $10,836.84, represents all of the amount Plaintiff sought. -2- In the offer of judgment, the Defendants agreed to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff with respect to her FLSA claim as determined by the Court. Doc. No. 25-2. Settlement via the offer of judgment of $10,836.84 to Plaintiff for unpaid wages and liquidated damages is a fair and reasonable settlement. It is RECOMMENDED that the settlement be accepted by the District Court as a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute” over FLSA issues; and the Plaintiff be ordered to file any motion for attorney’s fee within 10 days of any order adopting this recommendation. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report within ten (10) days from the date of its filing shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings on appeal. Recommended in Orlando, Florida on March 4, 2009. David A. Baker DAVID A. BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Copies furnished to: Presiding District Judge Counsel of Record Courtroom Deputy -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
