Meyer et al v. U.S. Installation Group, Inc., No. 2:2015cv00583 - Document 68 (M.D. Fla. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting 65 Report and Recommendations; granting 64 parties' Renewed Joint Motion for Judicial Approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreements and for Dismissal with Prejudice as to named Plaintiffs; denying as mo ot 30 plaintiffs Nevin Meyer and Stefan Meyer's Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action; denying as moot 31 defendant's Motion to Stay Determination of Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims in this action by plaintiffs Nevin Meyer and Stefan Meyer. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 9/20/2016. (AMB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Meyer et al v. U.S. Installation Group, Inc. Doc. 68 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION NEVIN MEYER, an individual, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals and STEFAN MEYER, an individual, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 2:15-cv-583-FtM-99CM U.S. INSTALLATION GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #65), filed August 30, 2016, recommending that the Renewed Joint Motion for Judicial Approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreements be granted and the Settlement Agreements be approved as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under the FLSA. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), Dockets.Justia.com cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 636(b)(1)(C). 28 U.S.C. § The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table). After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #65) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein. 2. The parties' Renewed Joint Motion for Judicial Approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreements and for Dismissal with Prejudice as to named Plaintiffs (Doc. #64) is granted and the Settlement Agreement and General Release (Doc. #64-1, 64-2) is approved as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute. - 2 - 3. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims asserted in this action by Plaintiffs Nevin Meyer and Stefan Meyer. 4. Plaintiffs Nevin Meyer and Stefan Meyer’s Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(B) and Motion for Equitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitations and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. #30) and defendant’s Motion to Stay Determination of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action (and for Equitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitations) or, in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Time to File Response (Doc. #31) are denied as moot. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this __20th__ day of September, 2016. Copies: Hon. Carol Mirando United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record Unrepresented parties - 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.
