Erling v. American Grille with Sushi LLC et al, No. 2:2017cv00350 - Document 79 (M.D. Fla. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 77 Third Amended Motion for Settlement; adopting 78 Report and Recommendations. See Order for new deadlines. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 8/16/2019. (RKR)

Download PDF
Erling v. American Grille with Sushi LLC et al Doc. 79 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 Report and Recommendation (Doc. #78), filed July 30, 2019, recommending that the Third Amended Joint Motion to Approve Settlement (Doc. #77) be denied and the case placed on the calendar for 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), 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 Dockets.Justia.com (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). This case has a long history of failing to demonstrate “no compromise” despite all efforts by the parties to argue otherwise. In this latest iteration, the parties indicate that plaintiff realized at his deposition in 2017 that he was only seeking compensation for 10 hours of overtime. Yet, no effort was made to conform the pleadings, or to amend the sworn interrogatories filed with the Court. Even if plaintiff had realized this simple fix, the parties failed to address concerns over the lack of consideration for the general release. 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. adopted and the findings incorporated herein. - 2 - #78) is hereby 2. The parties' Third Amended Joint Motion to Approve Settlement (Doc. #77) is denied. 3. The following deadlines shall apply for the remainder of the case, and a separate notice will issue: Meeting In Person to Prepare Joint Final Pretrial Statement Joint Final Pretrial Statement All Other Motions Including Motions In Limine Final Pretrial Conference Trial Term (Jury, 2-3 days) November 8, 2019 November 8, 2019 October 25, 2019 November 18, 2019, at 9:00 am before the undersigned December 2, 2019 DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this of August, 2019. Copies: Hon. Mac R. McCoy United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record Unrepresented parties - 3 - 16th 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.