Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-00177/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-00177-0/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

JAMES ROBERT THOMPSON, JR.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

BROOKSTONE BUILDING COMPANY, 

LLC, et al.,

Defendants/Counterclaimants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-00177-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Plaintiff James Robert Thompson, Jr. (“Thompson”), and Defendants Brookstone 

Building Company, LLC and Mike Whitcomb (“Defendants”) jointly move for approval of their 

settlement agreement. (Doc. 28). The parties seek approval of the terms of their settlement 

agreement on Thompson’s claims for unpaid overtime pay and Defendants’ counterclaims, as 

well as approval of separately negotiated attorney’s fees and costs to be paid to Thompson’s

counsel under the settlement. (Id. at ¶ 2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court approves 

the parties’ settlement. 

I. Background Facts

Thompson filed this action on January 29, 2016. (Doc. 1). He alleges claims for 

overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et. seq. On March 

21, 2016, Defendants answered the complaint, denying any noncompliance with the FLSA and 

asserting various affirmative defenses, and included their own counterclaim for violations of the 

 

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. 12).

FILED

 2016 Jul-18 PM 02:55

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:16-cv-00177-JHE Document 33 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 5
2

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and breach of a non-compete agreement. (Doc. 9). On May 

3, 2016, Thompson moved to dismiss the non-compete agreement claim in Defendants’

Counterclaim, which remains pending. (Doc. 19). On May 20, 2016, the parties were, on 

their joint motion, referred to mediation, (docs. 25 & 26), and, at the mediation, reached a 

settlement, the terms of which are contained in the Settlement Memorandum (the “Agreement”), 

(doc. 28 & 28-1). The undersigned has reviewed the Agreement.

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

settle his claims for unpaid overtime and attorney’s fees and costs to Thompson’s 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 Thompson is entitled to any further 

compensation. (Doc. 28 at 2). 

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 

Case 2:16-cv-00177-JHE Document 33 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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:

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 

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

might recover if he prevailed on his claim. Thompson’s counsel has informed the Court of the 

damages numbers he intended to use going forward on the FLSA claim, and the settlement 

amount accounts for the entire amount plus liquidated damages. The payments to Thompson to 

settle his FLSA claims for unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages are fair, 

reasonable, and adequate.

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 Thompson’s claim

and the amount of overtime compensation owed to him. Both parties have acknowledged to the 

 

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-00177-JHE Document 33 Filed 07/18/16 Page 3 of 5
4

Court the settlement is to avoid the expense of contested legal proceedings. 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. Moreover, Thompson has

counterclaims pending against him that would increase the risks and costs of further litigation, 

including possible set-off. Accordingly, this settlement is a reasonable means for all parties to 

minimize future risks and litigation costs. 

This settlement occurred early in this action and before discovery; however, Thompson 

was a salaried employee claiming to have been misclassified, and Defendants had counterclaims 

pending against him, complicating the issues and making it more likely discovery would not 

resolve the case in a way consistent to its cost. Relying on the parties’ own knowledge, they 

had sufficient information at this early point to enable them to make an adequate assessment of 

the case. 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.

Additionally, the undersigned has reviewed the proposed, separately negotiated 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.”). The 

agreement regarding payment of Thompson’s counsel’s fees and costs was reached separately 

and without regard to the amount paid to Thompson. (Doc. 28 at 2). Thompson’s counsel has 

informed the Court of the total fees and costs for dealing with the FLSA claims, which, included 

on top of the amount of claimed FLSA damages, will be fully covered by the settlement amount. 

Thompson’s counsel is compensated adequately for the time and expense of drafting and filing 

Case 2:16-cv-00177-JHE Document 33 Filed 07/18/16 Page 4 of 5
5

pleadings and conducting settlement negotiations, and Thompson’s claims were not 

compromised by any deduction of attorney’s fees, costs, or expenses.

III. Conclusion

The Agreement is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the 

settlement of the FLSA claims is APPROVED pending approval of the settlement in the 

bankruptcy court. A separate order dismissing the case will be entered after the parties notify 

the Court the settlement has been approved in bankruptcy.

DONE this 18th day of July 2016.

_______________________________

JOHN H. ENGLAND, III

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00177-JHE Document 33 Filed 07/18/16 Page 5 of 5