UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 20-cv-21942-UU

CARLOS TORRES,

Plaintiff,

v.

LESA FLORIDA CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion for Court Approval 

of Defendants’ Offer of Judgment and for Order of Dismissal With Prejudice (the “Motion”). D.E. 

29. The Court has considered the Motion and the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise 

fully advised on the premises.

“While entry of a Rule 68 judgment is ordinarily ministerial rather than discretionary, this 

general statement is too broad to encompass all instances in which Rule 68 offers are made.” 

Molina v. SMI Security Mgmt., Inc., No. 11-24245-CIV, 2012 WL 12864928, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 

21, 2012) (citing Utility Automation 2000, Inc. v. Choctawatchee Elec. Co-op., Inc., 298 F.3d 

1238, 1250 (11th Cir. 2002) (Marcus, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The 

Court has as independent duty to review the terms of a settlement offer in the context of suits 

brought by employees for violations of the FLSA,” and it must “determine whether any settlement 

is a ‘fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute’ of the FLSA issues.” Id. (quoting Lynn’s 

Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 1982)). A party’s acceptance 

of a “Rule 68 offer of judgment in an FLSA case does not relieve [the court] of the duty to make 

Case 1:20-cv-21942-UU Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 1 of 3
the fairness finding required by Lynn's Food Stores, Inc.” Dowell v. Kidz R 4 UZ, Inc., No. 08-

CV-651, 2009 WL 113284, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2009).

On July 9, 2020, the parties filed a Notice of Plaintiff’s Acceptance of Rule 68 Offer of 

Judgment and Request for Court Approval for Entry of Judgment. D.E. 26. The Court found that 

the division of the offered judgment was unreasonable because the majority of the funds were to 

be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel, and Plaintiff’s counsel failed to provide any documentation 

indicating that the compromise was reasonable and/or that such an amount of attorneys’ fees was

justified. 

In the instant Motion, the parties explain that the offer of judgment is fair and reasonable 

because “Defendants dispute that there is coverage in this case and dispute that Plaintiff was their 

employee.” D.E. 29. Further, the offer of judgment “tenders attorneys’ fees and costs separately 

from Plaintiff’s award of unpaid wages.” Id. Moreover, the parties state that “counsel for Plaintiff 

agreed to accept nearly 50% less than the fee amount reflected in Plaintiff counsel’s lodestar 

because of Plaintiff’s desire to accept Defendants’ Offer of Judgment.” Id. The Court has 

reviewed Plaintiff’s attorneys’ declarations and time records and finds the settlement to be a fair 

and reasonable compromise of the instant action. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion (D.E. 29) is GRANTED. Judgment is 

hereby entered against Defendants, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court 

will retain jurisdiction to enforce the offer of judgment until October 16, 2020. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk of Court SHALL administratively close this 

case. All future hearings and deadlines are CANCELLED, and all pending motions are DENIED 

AS MOOT. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this _17th_ day of July, 2020.

Case 1:20-cv-21942-UU Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 2 of 3
 _______________________________ 

URSULA UNGARO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies provided: 

All counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-21942-UU Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 3 of 3