Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-01240/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-01240-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL COLLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ITF, LLC. d/b/a IRON TRIBE FITNESS,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01240-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Plaintiff Michael Collins (“Collins”), and Defendant ITF LLC., d/b/a/ Iron Tribe Fitness 

(“Defendant”) jointly move for approval of their settlement agreement. (Doc. 11). The parties 

seek approval of the terms of their settlement agreement on Collins’ claim for unpaid overtime pay 

as well as approval of attorney’s fees and costs to be paid to Collins’ counsel under the settlement. 

(Id. at ¶ 3). For the reasons set forth below, the Court approves the parties’ settlement. 

I. Background Facts

Collins filed this action on July 29, 2016. (Doc. 1). He alleges a claim for overtime under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et. seq. In lieu of Defendant filing an 

answer, the parties exchanged initial disclosures and informal discovery, discussed payroll and 

personnel records, and reached a settlement on October 17, 2016, the terms of which are contained 

 

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 73, the parties have voluntarily consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge 

conduct any and all proceedings, including trial and the entry of final judgment. (Doc. 8).

FILED

 2016 Nov-29 AM 09:41

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:16-cv-01240-JHE Document 12 Filed 11/29/16 Page 1 of 6
2

in the Joint Motion, filed under seal, to Approve FLSA Settlement (“the Agreement”). (See Doc. 

11). The undersigned has reviewed the Agreement.

Under the Agreement, Defendants have agreed to pay Collins a specified amount to settle 

his claim for unpaid overtime and attorney’s fees and costs to Collins’ counsel. The parties 

stipulate and agree the terms set forth in the Agreement constitute a fair and reasonable resolution 

of a bona fide dispute regarding whether Collins is entitled to any further compensation. (See 

Doc. 11, ¶¶ 5, 9). 

II. Analysis

Subject to specific exceptions, the FLSA provides that employees are entitled to receive 

overtime pay at one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty 

per week. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). An employer who violates the FLSA is liable to its employee 

for both unpaid overtime compensation and for an equal amount in liquidated damages. 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b). In an action to recover unpaid overtime compensation, a court is further required to 

award a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs of the action. Silva v. Miller, 307 

Fed. App’x. 349, 351 (11th Cir. 2009).

Judicial review and approval of an FLSA settlement is necessary to give it final and binding 

effect. Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982). Before 

approving an FLSA settlement, a court must scrutinize it to determine if it is “a fair and reasonable 

resolution of a bona fide dispute.” Id. at 1354-55. If the settlement reflects a reasonable 

compromise over issues that are actually in dispute, the Court may approve the settlement “to 

promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.” Id. at 1354. In determining whether 

the settlement is fair and reasonable, the court should consider the following factors:

Case 2:16-cv-01240-JHE Document 12 Filed 11/29/16 Page 2 of 6
3

1. the existence of fraud or collusions behind the settlement;

2. the complexity, expense, and likely duration of litigation;

3. the stage of the proceeding and the amount of discovery completed;

4. the probability of success on the merits;

5. the range of possible recovery; and

6. the opinions of counsel.

See Leverso v. South Trust Bank of Ala. Nat. Assoc., 18 F.3d 1527, 1531 n.6 (11th Cir. 1994). In 

reviewing the terms of a proposed settlement, there is a strong presumption in favor of finding it 

is fair. Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977).2

Here, there is no indication of fraud or collusion. All parties were represented by 

experienced counsel, and the payments take into account the likelihood of success and the amount 

Collins might recover if he prevailed on his claim. (Doc. 11, ¶¶ 12(a)-(d)). The complexity, 

expense, and expected duration of continued litigation also militate in favor of this settlement. The 

parties continue to disagree over the merits of Collins’ claim and the amount of compensation 

owed to him. (Id. ¶ 1). Indeed, the Agreement provides the Defendant “denies all allegations, and 

defended the same, both on a factual and legal basis.” (Id.). Both parties have acknowledged to 

the Court the settlement is to avoid the expense of contested legal proceedings. (Id. ¶ 4). The 

outcome of contested litigation is uncertain and if this matter were to be litigated to an award by 

jury, all parties would be required to engage in costly litigation. Accordingly, this settlement is a 

reasonable means for all parties to minimize future risks and litigation costs, and the confidential 

payments to Collins to settle his claims are fair, reasonable, and adequate.

 

2 The decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as that court 

existed on September 30, 1981, handed down prior to the close of business that day, are binding 

precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th 

Cir. 1981).

Case 2:16-cv-01240-JHE Document 12 Filed 11/29/16 Page 3 of 6
4

Based on counsel’s representations, there has been sufficient investigation and exchange 

of information and documents to enable counsel to reasonably and adequately assess the claims 

and defenses at issue. (Id. ¶ 2, 12). Specifically, the Defendant produced records, including payroll 

summaries and job descriptions. (Id. ¶ 2, 12(a)). The parties have also discussed payroll and 

personnel data, including, but not limited to, payroll and time records, various meeting notes, and 

business records. (Id. ¶ 2). The parties represent they have had “a full opportunity to discuss the 

payroll, personnel, and other data relating to the Plaintiff, his job responsibilities, the hours he 

claimed to have worked and the compensation he received.” (Id.). Before agreeing to the proposed 

settlement, the parties had sufficient information to enable them to make an informed analysis and 

assessment of the case. For example, the motion to approve the settlement details the specific 

calculations used in arriving at the confidential settlement amount which included the hours 

Collins claimed to have worked and his hourly rate. (Doc. 11, ¶ 12(b)). It also sets forth contested 

issues of law and fact that influenced the settlement amount. (Id. ¶ 12(c)-(d)). Settlement 

negotiations balanced the best possible recovery for Collins against the realities of him trying to 

prove that recovery in a court of law. (Doc. 22, ¶ 12(a)-(d)). In doing so, counsel reached a 

compromise the court finds is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Moreover, in light of the costs of 

further litigation and the uncertainty and timing of any recovery, the proposed settlement is a fair 

and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.

The undersigned has also reviewed the proposed payment of attorney’s fees and costs and 

agrees it should be approved because it is reasonable. See Silva, 307 F. App’x at 351 (“FLSA 

requires judicial review of the reasonableness of counsel’s legal fees to assure both that counsel is 

compensated adequately and that no conflict of interest taints the amount the wronged employee 

recovers under a settlement agreement.”). Counsel has informed the court the attorney’s fee in 

Case 2:16-cv-01240-JHE Document 12 Filed 11/29/16 Page 4 of 6
5

this settlement is “far less than a reasonable hourly rate for an attorney with over forty years of 

employment experience if this matter were to continue to trial.” (Doc. 11, ¶ 12(e)). Based on the 

information provided in the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement, Collins’s claims were not 

compromised by any deduction of attorney’s fees, costs, or expenses. “Where the attorney’s fee 

was agreed upon separately, without regard to the amount paid to the plaintiff, then ‘unless the 

settlement does not appear reasonable on its face or there is reason to believe that the plaintiff’s 

recovery was adversely affected by the amount of fees paid to his attorney, the Court will approve 

the settlement without separately considering the reasonableness of the fee to be paid to plaintiff’s 

counsel.’” Davis v. The Filta Group, Inc., 2010 WL 3958701, *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2010) 

(quoting Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., 2009 WL 2371407, *5 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2009)). Because 

counsel, with a combined experience of over sixty (60) years in employment matters, represent the 

attorney’s fee here is “far less” than a reasonable hourly rate, and given the Agreement indicates

that payment to Collins fully compensates him for his contested pay claims, the court concludes 

Plaintiff’s recovery was not affected by the amount of the attorneys’ fee. The court has considered 

the amount of the fee and finds it to be reasonable.

III. Conclusion

Having reviewed the guidelines set forth by the Eleventh Circuit for approval of an FLSA 

settlement, and scrutinizing the settlement, the court finds that: the Settlement Agreement is fair; 

it reflects reasonable compromises of issues actually in dispute; the settlement was reached in an 

adversarial context in which the Plaintiff was represented by competent and experienced counsel; 

and the totality of the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, all as required by Lynn’s Food. 

679 F.2d at 1354. The court has also considered the amount of the attorney’s fee and finds it to be 

reasonable. 

Case 2:16-cv-01240-JHE Document 12 Filed 11/29/16 Page 5 of 6
6

Therefore, the Joint Motion, filed under seal, to Approve FLSA Settlement is GRANTED, 

and the settlement is APPROVED.

DONE this 28th day of November, 2016.

_______________________________

JOHN H. ENGLAND, III

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01240-JHE Document 12 Filed 11/29/16 Page 6 of 6