Erling v. American Grille with Sushi LLC et al, No. 2:2017cv00350 - Document 76 (M.D. Fla. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 71 Motion for Approval of Settlement without prejudice to filing an amended revised motion or a notice that the parties are ready for trial on or before July 30, 2019; terminating 74 Report and Recommendations; adopting 75 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/18/2019. (RKR)

Download PDF
Erling v. American Grille with Sushi LLC et al Doc. 76 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION TODD ERLING, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:17-cv-350-FtM-29MRM AMERICAN GRILLE WITH SUSHI LLC, a Florida profit corporation and CHRIS K. WHITAKER, individually, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. #75), filed July 2, 2019, recommending that the Revised Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement and to Dismiss the Case With Prejudice (Doc. #71) be denied without prejudice to electing an option to file a second revised joint motion, or to advise the Court that the parties wish to proceed with trial. 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. 636(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific Dockets.Justia.com 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). 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). The Magistrate Judge determined that he could not recommend approval because the parties continue to fail to explain the discrepancy between plaintiff’s monetary demands in the pleadings and in answers to court interrogatories compared to the lower settlement amount, the allocation to unpaid wages appears to imply that no liquidated damages are included, the mutual general releases are unsupported or otherwise unexplained, and the parties fail to explain why the Court should retain jurisdiction over enforcement for an indefinite period of time. 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. once more. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: - 2 - The motion will be denied 1. The Order (Doc. #74), docketed as a Report and Recommendation, is terminated as moot. 2. The Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. #75) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein. 3. The parties' Revised Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement and to Dismiss the Case With Prejudice (Doc. #71) is DENIED without prejudice to filing an amended revised joint motion that addresses the issues raised, or a notice that the parties will proceed with trial, on or before July 30, 2019. The Court is not inclined to entertain another motion unless all issues are adequately addressed. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this of July, 2019. Copies: Hon. Mac R. McCoy United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record Unrepresented parties - 3 - 18th day

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.