UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-60885-CIV-HUNT

CONSENT CASE

BRANDON THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FORT LAUDERDALE LAW GROUP

SOUTH, PLLC, 

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER 

THIS MATTER is before this Court on Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Enforce 

Settlement, For Sanctions and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Against Defendant, For InPerson Show Cause Hearing, And to Extend Time Period Court Has to Reserve/Maintain 

Jurisdiction (“Second Motion to Enforce”). ECF No. 76. Pursuant to the Parties’ consent, 

this case is before the undersigned for all proceedings, including trial and entry of final 

judgment. See ECF Nos. 68, 69. 

This case includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for alleged 

violations of the statutory wage and overtime provisions. See 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. 

ECF No. 1. The Parties reached a settlement and submitted the settlement agreement 

for this Court’s approval. ECF No. 63. The undersigned approved the settlement 

agreement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the 

terms of the agreement for twenty-eight months from the date of dismissal. ECF No. 70.

Case 0:20-cv-60885-PMH Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2023 Page 1 of 4
2

Plaintiff previously moved this Court to enforce the settlement agreement against 

Defendant, to require Defendant to immediately pay the balance of all missed payments,

and to instruct Defendant to ensure timely payments are made for the remaining 

payments. ECF No. 71. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to make any payments 

after July 2022. Defendant did not respond to the previous motion, even after being 

ordered by the Court to do so. The undersigned granted the previous motion to enforce

and ordered Defendant to make all overdue payments and timely make any remaining 

payments. ECF No. 75.

Plaintiff, once again, moves this Court to enforce the settlement agreement, 

require Defendant to make all outstanding payments, and for a show-cause hearing. ECF 

No. 76. Plaintiff also requests that this Court continue to maintain jurisdiction over the 

agreement until Defendant complies with this Court’s previous order and the settlement 

agreement. Defendant has not responded to the Motion and the deadline to respond has 

passed.

Prior to the court granting a Motion for an Order to Show Cause, the moving party 

must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the “alleged contemnor violated 

a court's earlier order.” Peery v. City of Miami, 977 F.3d 1061, 1077 (11th Cir. 2020) 

(quotation omitted). “The clear and convincing evidence must establish that: (1) the 

allegedly violated order was valid and lawful; (2) the order was clear and unambiguous; 

and (3) the alleged violator had the ability to comply with the order.” Id. at 1076–77 

(quoting Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1296 (11th Cir. 2002)). Once the 

moving party makes its prima facie showing, the burden then shifts to the alleged 

Case 0:20-cv-60885-PMH Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2023 Page 2 of 4
3

contemnor to produce evidence explaining its noncompliance at a show cause hearing. 

Id.; see also FTC v. Leshin, 618 F.3d 1221, 1232 (11th Cir. 2010).

Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated that not only has Defendant failed to follow the 

terms of the settlement agreement but also that Defendant has failed to follow this Court’s 

Enforcement Order. This Court’s Order was valid, clear and unambiguous, and—without 

any evidence to suggest otherwise—Defendant had the ability to comply. The 

undersigned ordered Defendant to make all outstanding payments and ordered 

Defendant to timely make any remaining payments. Defendant failed to do so. Defendant 

also failed to alert the Court of any reasons for its failure. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Second 

Motion to Enforce, ECF No. 76, is GRANTED. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows:

1. Defendant shall pay all outstanding payments, including the previously 

order attorneys’ fees and costs, no later than August 14, 2023. 

2. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated 

with the Second Motion to Enforce. 

3. Further, a show cause hearing as to why Defendant should not be held in 

contempt and why Mr. Chris Paterson should not be sanctioned shall be 

scheduled for August 21, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 310b.

Case 0:20-cv-60885-PMH Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2023 Page 3 of 4
4

4. Lastly, counsel of record Mr. Jesse Ian Unruh is expected to attend the 

hearing or otherwise alert the Court why he has failed to respond to any 

Motions or Orders within this action. 

5. The undersigned shall retain jurisdiction over the agreement until Defendant 

is within compliance.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on July 26th, 2023.

_____________________________________

PATRICK M. HUNT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

All Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-60885-PMH Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2023 Page 4 of 4