Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas Johnston, On Behalf of Himself and Those Similarly Situated, et al v. Gator Apple

January 4, 2012

THOMAS JOHNSTON, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
GATOR APPLE, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DEFENDANT.



ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 31; Report), entered on December 21, 2011, recommending that the Joint Motion for Court Approval of the Settlement Agreements and Dismissal With Prejudice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 29; Motion) be granted, that the Court approve the parties' settlement, and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 5. On December 30, 2011, the parties filed a notice advising the Court that there are no objections to the Report and Recommendation. See Joint Notice of Non-Objection Regarding Report & Recommendation Dated November 18, 2011 (Dkt. No. 32).

The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).

The Court has conducted an independent examination of the record in this case and a de novo review of the legal conclusions. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (FLSA), seeking recovery of unpaid overtime. See Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Dkt. No. 1). Thereafter, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, which resulted in a resolution of the issues and claims raised in this case. See Motion (Dkt. No. 29). Upon review of the record, including the Report, Motion, and Settlement Agreements, the undersigned concludes that the settlement represents a "reasonable and fair" resolution of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt Judge Klindt's Report.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 31) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

2. The Joint Motion for Court Approval of the Settlement Agreements and Dismissal With Prejudice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 29) is GRANTED, and the parties are ordered to comply with the obligations set forth therein.

3. For purposes of satisfying the FLSA, the Settlement Agreements are APPROVED.

4. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with each party to pay its own fees and costs, except as provided in the Motion.

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions or deadlines as moot and close this file.

Copies to: Counsel of Record

20120104

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.