UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO: 1:20-21942-CIV-UU

CARLOS TORRES,

Plaintiff,

v.

LESA FLORIDA CORP., 

a Florida corporation, and

OUR HOME APARTMENTS CORP.,

a Florida corporation, and 

SAYEGH & SONS, CORP., 

a Florida corporation, 

Defendants.

/

JOINT MOTION FOR COURT APPROVAL OF DEFENDANTS’ OFFER OF 

JUDGMENT AND FOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, CARLOS TORRES (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants, LESA FLORIDA CORP., 

OUR HOME APARTMENTS CORP., and SAYEGH & SONS, CORP., (collectively 

“Defendants”) (Plaintiff and Defendants are hereinafter referred to as “the Parties”), by and 

through their respective undersigned counsel, file their Joint Motion for Court Approval of

Defendants’ Offer of Judgment and For Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, as follows:

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants, LESA FLORIDA CORP. and OUR 

HOME APARTMENTS, CORP. on May 8, 2020. D.E. 1. Plaintiff amended his Complaint on 

June 19, 2020 to add SAYEGH & SONS, CORP. as a Defendant. The Amended Complaint alleges

(1) count against all Defendants for federal overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act (“FLSA”). D.E. 17. Plaintiff alleges that the overtime violations occurred because Defendants 

Case 1:20-cv-21942-UU Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 1 of 6
2

misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor. Id. On July 1, 2020, Defendants served 

Plaintiff with a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment and tendered Plaintiff $500.00 in unpaid wages, plus 

$2,700.00 in attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff accepted the Offer of Judgment and filed a Notice of 

Acceptance on July 2, 2020. D.E. 25. On July 14, 2020, this Honorable Court entered an order 

denying the Parties’ Joint Notice of Acceptance of Defendants’ Offer of Judgment, requiring the 

Parties to submit a Motion for Approval. D.E. 28. This motion followed. 

Defendants deny that Plaintiff was an employee and also deny that Plaintiff ever worked 

more than forty (40) hours in any workweek. Plaintiff, on the other hand, estimates that he is owed 

$1,430.00 in unliquidated damages from his brief working relationship with Defendants. See D.E. 

19. However, in an effort to avoid costs associated with further litigating the issue, Defendants 

tendered an offer of judgment1 to Plaintiff in an amount that they believe is more than Plaintiff 

will ever be able to prove he is owed if the case were to proceed to trial. In light of the inherent 

risks in litigation and additional issues created by the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiff decided to 

accept Defendants’ offer of judgment. The Parties respectfully request that this Honorable Court 

approve Defendants’ Offer of Judgment, which was already accepted by Plaintiff, and find that the 

Offer of Judgment is a fair and reasonable resolution of Plaintiff’s disputed FLSA claim. 

II. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Unlike many other legal claims, parties may not bargain away the FLSA’s protections. See 

Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 708 (1945) (“[T]he same policy which forbids 

employee waiver of the minimum statutory rate because of inequality of bargaining power 

prohibits these same employees from bargaining with their employer in determining whether so 

1 The offer of judgment tenders attorneys’ fees and costs separate from Plaintiff’s unpaid wages. 

Case 1:20-cv-21942-UU Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 2 of 6
3

little damage was suffered that waiver of liquidated damages is called for”). Employees have only 

two ways to settle or compromise back wages claims arising under the FLSA. See, e.g., Lynn’s 

Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982). First, under section 

216(c), the Secretary of Labor is authorized to supervise payment to employees of unpaid wages 

owed to them. Id. at 1353. The only other route for compromise of FLSA claims is provided in 

the context of lawsuits brought directly by employees against their employer under section 216(b) 

to recover back wages for FLSA violations. Id. The Court is not relieved of its duty to review an 

Offer of Judgment in FLSA cases. See Dowell v. Kidz R 4 UZ, Inc., 2009 WL 113284 at *2 (M.D. 

Fla. Jan. 16, 2009). 

When employees bring a private action for back wages under the FLSA, and they present 

to the district court a proposed settlement, the district court may enter a stipulated judgment after 

scrutinizing the settlement for fairness. See, e.g., Gutierrez v. Coco Baleadas Corp., 2018 WL 

6573131 at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2018) (Ungaro. J.) (holding that the FLSA settlement agreement 

was fair and reasonable when the Plaintiff received $520.00 and his counsel received $2,000.00, 

because attorneys’ fees were negotiated separately from Plaintiff’s settlement, and because the 

Parties provided the Court with a comprehensive explanation of their division of fees); see also 

Perez v. PJ’S Land Clearing & Excavating, Inc., 2012 WL 1290332 at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 

2012)(Brannon. J) (recommending approval of FLSA Settlement Agreement upon finding that the 

settlement was a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions); Dell 

Valle v. Digital Risk, LLC, 2014 WL 5038617, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2014) (Presnell, J.) 

(adopting Magistrate Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation for approval of FLSA Joint 

Settlement Agreement where attorneys received $10,000 out of a total settlement of $20,000); 

Case 1:20-cv-21942-UU Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 3 of 6
4

Dalton v. Physicians Stat Lab, Inc., 2019 WL 1093438 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2019) (Conway, 

J.) (adopting report and recommendation to approve FLSA settlement agreement when Plaintiff 

recovered half of damages claimed in Answer to Court’s Interrogatories and finding fees were fair 

and reasonable when they were negotiated without regard to amount Plaintiff agreed to accept in 

the settlement); Jenkins v. Associated P’ship, Ltd., Inc., 2010 WL 375936 (M.D. Fla. Jan 25, 2010) 

(Presnell J.) (adopting report and recommendation for approval of Settlement Agreement and for 

dismissal with prejudice in an FLSA matter where Plaintiff’s attorney received $20,000 in fees 

and costs and where Plaintiff received $10,000 for unpaid wages and liquidated damages). If a 

settlement in an FLSA dispute reflects a reasonable compromise over issues that are actually in 

dispute, such as FLSA coverage or computation of back wages, the district court is permitted to 

review and approve the settlement in order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of 

litigation. See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d at 1353. 

Here, the Parties respectfully submit that the offer of judgment constitutes a fair and 

reasonable resolution of the FLSA claims asserted in this case. Defendants dispute that there is 

coverage in this case and dispute that Plaintiff was their employee. The Offer of Judgment tenders 

attorneys’ fees and costs separately from Plaintiff’s award of unpaid wages.2 See, e.g., Huertas v. 

Competitive Edge Group, Inc., et. al., M.D. Fla. Case No. 6:19-cv-915-CEM-GJK (Attorney’s fees 

deemed reasonable in light of firm’s detailed time records and the fact that fees were negotiated 

separately from plaintiff’s recovery); see also Anderson v. AE Outfitters Retail Co., 2016 WL 

2According to Plaintiff’s counsel’s internal calculations, counsel for Plaintiff incurred more than 

five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars prosecuting Plaintiff’s claims. Counsel for Plaintiff agreed to

accept a total of two thousand seven hundred ($2,700.00) dollars in attorneys’ fees and costs 

because of Plaintiff’s desire to accept Defendants’ offer of judgment. 

Case 1:20-cv-21942-UU Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 4 of 6
5

6705199 at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2016) (Rosenberg, J.) (Judge Rosenberg requiring counsel to 

submit lodestar to review fairness of attorneys’ fees). Here, 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. Exhibit “A;” Exhibit “B;” Exhibit “C.” 

Plaintiff’s counsel has attached declarations from Mr. Richards, Mr. Blumstein and Ms. Petrosino

with their accompanying lodestars. Exhibit “A;” Exhibit “B;” Exhibit “C.” The hourly rates 

billed by Plaintiff’s counsel have been previously approved by numerous courts in the Southern 

District of Florida. See, e.g., Jiminez v. Alpine Towing, S.D. Fla. Case No. 1:19-cv-21643-KMM

(Judge Moore approved Mr. Richards at $350/hour and associate attorney at $225/hour in FLSA 

case); Fish v. Ely’s Tire Inc., et. al., S.D. Fla. Case No. 0:19-cv-61068-KMM (Mr. Richards 

approved at $350/hour and associate attorney approved at $225/hour in FLSA case); Conrey v. 

Bagel Way Kosher Way, S.D. Fla. Case No. 1:18-cv-22795-DPG (Mr. Richards approved at 

$400/hour in FLSA case); Carey v. EWPB LLC, S.D. Fla. Case No. 9:19-cv-80811-DMM (Judge 

Middlebrooks approved Mr. Richards at $350/hour and acknowledged that this is imminently 

reasonable because other courts have approved him at $400/hour and approved associate attorney

at $225/hour based on her experience). Because there is no settlement agreement in this case, there 

are no confidentiality or general release provisions that violate public policy or the spirit of the 

FLSA. Furthermore, Defendants dispute that Plaintiff was an employee or that Plaintiff even

worked overtime. In light of the contested issues in this case, the Offer of Judgment represents a 

fair and reasonable resolution of this matter. 

III. CONCLUSION

Case 1:20-cv-21942-UU Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 5 of 6
6

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, the Parties respectfully request that this 

Honorable Court approve the FLSA Offer of Judgment, dismiss the case with prejudice, and retain 

jurisdiction over enforcement of the Offer of Judgment for up to ninety (90) days. 

Respectfully Submitted,

MINERLEY FEIN, P.A.

Counsel for Defendants

1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 420

Boca Raton, FL, 33432

Tel: (561) 362-6699

/s/Meghan Miller, Esq. 

KENNETH L. MINERLEY, ESQ.

Fla. Bar No. 521840

ken@minerleyfein.com

MEGHAN MILLER, ESQ.

Fla. Bar No. 1003898

meghan@minerleyfein.com

jackson@minerleyfein.com

fileclerk@minerleyfein.com

litigation@minerleyfein.com

 

USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 

JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC

Counsel for Plaintiff

805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Telephone: (954) 871-0050

By:/s/ Jake Blumstein, Esq.__

JORDAN RICHARDS, ESQ.

Fla. Bar No. 108372

MELISSA SCOTT, ESQ.

Fla. Bar No. 1010123

JAKE BLUMSTEIN, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 1017746

jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com

jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

Case 1:20-cv-21942-UU Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 6 of 6