United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
ORDER
ROY B.
DALTON JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before
the Court is Plaintiff's Revised and Amended Unopposed
Motion for Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement and
Entry of Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice. (Doc. 11
(“Second Motion”).) This Second
Motion was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla R.
Spaulding for a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) (Doc. 12), to which
Plaintiff objected. (Doc. 13
(“Objection”)). On de novo
review, the Court finds that the Objection is due to be
overruled, the R&R is due to be adopted, and the Second
Motion is due to be granted.
I.
Background
Plaintiff
initiated this action against Defendants, her former
employers, alleging they violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”) by denying her
overtime wages. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff then filed a notice of
settlement (Doc. 6), after which the Court directed the
parties to move for approval of the settlement agreement
under Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States ex
rel. United States Department of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350,
1355 (11th Cir. 1982). (Doc. 7.) The parties did so
(see Doc. 8 (“First
Motion”)), but Magistrate Judge Spaulding
denied the First Motion without prejudice because among other
issues, the proposed settlement agreement contained an overly
broad release. (See Doc. 10; see
also Doc. 8-1.) The parties then filed the Second
Motion, seeking approval of an amended FLSA settlement
agreement. (See Doc. 11-1 (“Amended
Agreement”).)
Under
the terms of the Amended Agreement, Defendants will pay
Plaintiff a total of $10, 000-$5, 920 in settlement of
Plaintiff's claims and for liquidated damages
(“Payment”) and $4, 080 to her
counsel (“Attorney Fees”).
(Id. ¶ 3(a).) The Amended Agreement also
addresses the scope of the release of claims. The preamble
states that its purpose is “to resolve all issues and
disputes which were part of [this action], limited to the
claims and allegations [Plaintiff] has made or could have
made in [this action].” (Doc. 11-1, p. 1.) The release
provision provides:
In consideration of the promises contained in this Agreement
plus other good and sufficient consideration including but
not limited to the settlement payments in paragraph 3 of this
Agreement, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
[Plaintiff], for herself, her heirs, executors,
administrators, representatives, attorneys, successors and
assigns, hereby releases [Defendants], and any parent,
divisions, subsidiary corporations, affiliates, predecessors,
successors and assigns and their respective present and
former directors, officers, employees, stockholders, agents,
representatives, attorneys and accountants, from all FLSA
claims or causes of action whatsoever, known or unknown,
including all claims which were alleged or could have been
alleged in the Civil Action against Defendants, which arose
from the beginning of the world to the date of this
Agreement. The claims being released include all claims
pertaining to The Fair Labor Standards Act and all claims for
attorney's fees
[(“Release”)]
(Id. ¶ 5.) Under the Settlement Payment Terms
provision, the Amended Agreement provides:
In consideration for the dismissal of [this action], and in
full and final settlement and in satisfaction of any and all
claims Plaintiff has for overtime wages or claims for wages
under the FLSA, or may have against [Defendants] or any other
person or party released by the Release in Section 5,
including, but not limited to, any and all claims for
overtime wages, liquidated damages, punitive damages and all
claims for attorneys' fees and costs . . . .
(Id. ¶ 3.)
Following
the filing of the Amended Agreement, the Court referred the
Second Motion to Magistrate Judge Spaulding, who issued the
R&R. (See Doc. 12.) Plaintiff then objected
(Doc. 13), and the matter is now ripe.
II.
Legal Standard
When a
party objects to a magistrate judge's findings, the
district court must “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report . . . to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court
“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” Id. The district court must consider
the record and factual issues based on the record independent
of the magistrate judge's report. Ernest S. ex rel.
Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513
(11th Cir. 1990).
III.
Analysis
In the
R&R, Magistrate Judge Spaulding concludes that: (1)
Plaintiff has compromised her claim; (2) the Payment is fair
and reasonable; and (3) the Attorney Fees were negotiated
separately from the Payment. (Doc. 12.) With respect to the
Amended Agreement's Release, Magistrate Judge Spaulding
finds that it is “arguably permissible, ” because
it is limit ed to only FLSA claims. (Id. a t 6 .)
Nevertheless, she notes that the Release sweeps broader than
the claims Plaintiff asserted in her Complaint because it
purports to release Defendants from “known and
unknown” claims that Plaintiff “could have
alleged in [this action] against Defendants.”
(Id. at 6-7 (quoting Doc. 11-1, ΒΆ 5).) So
Magistrate Judge Spaulding provides two alternative
recommendations: (1) if the Court finds that the Release and
other provisions in the Amended Agreement undermine the
reasonableness of the ...