1

www.spirelawfirm.com

Employment Attorneys

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

BRANDEE R. SHATTENBERG, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SEBRING NP SERVICES, LLC, and

AMY DE LA FUENTE, an individual,

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:20-cv-14144

JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF FLSA SETTLEMENT AND 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Defendants, SEBRING NP SERVICES, LLC and AMY DE LA FUENTE, hereby 

moves this Honorable Court to issue an Order Approving the FLSA settlement in the 

above-referenced matter, the terms of which are as follows:

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On May 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a civil action in the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Pierce Division Case No. 2:20-cv14144. (See Document 1).

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the overtime provisions of the 

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (the “FLSA”). (See id.).

3. Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s claims in this action. 

4. The Parties have agreed to fully and completely resolve this matter. 

Case 2:20-cv-14144-JEM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 1 of 7
2

www.spirelawfirm.com

Employment Attorneys

5. The Parties agree that the terms of the settlement constitutes a fair and reasonable 

resolution of Plaintiff’s claims in this matter. 

6. Written Settlement Agreements have been prepared that memorialize the 

terms of the Parties’ settlements. In accordance with the applicable requirements for 

settling an FLSA claim, the Parties hereby jointly seek the Court’s approval of the 

settlement reached in this matter. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached as 

Composite Exhibit A.

7. Provided that the Court approves the terms of the Settlement Agreements, the 

Parties further move the Court to enter an Order granting the instant Motion to Approve 

Settlement Agreements and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.

II. ARGUMENT

Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), claims for back wages and 

other damages arising under the FLSA may only be settled or compromised with the 

approval of the district court or the Secretary of Labor. See Brooklyn Savings Bank v. 

O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945); D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108 (1946); see also 

Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) (claims for 

back wages arising under the FLSA may be settled or compromised only with the approval 

of the Court or the Secretary of Labor). To approve the settlements, the Court should 

determine that the compromise is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute 

over FLSA provisions. Id. The Eleventh Circuit has stated that the circumstances justifying 

court approval of an FLSA settlement in a litigation context are as follows:

Case 2:20-cv-14144-JEM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 2 of 7
3

www.spirelawfirm.com

Employment Attorneys

Settlements may be permissible in the context of a suit brought by employees 

under the FLSA for back wages because initiation of the action by the 

employees provides some assurance of an adversarial context. The 

employees are likely to be represented by an attorney who can protect their 

rights under the statute. Thus, when the parties submit a settlement to the 

court for approval, the settlement is more likely to reflect a reasonable 

compromise of disputed issues than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought 

by an employer’s overreaching. If a settlement in an employee FLSA suit 

does reflect a reasonable compromise over issues, such as FLSA coverage or 

computation of back wages that are actually in dispute, we allow the district 

court to approve the settlement in order to promote the policy of encouraging 

settlement of litigation.

Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354.

The Court may approve the settlement “in order to promote the policy of 

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

fair and reasonable, the Court may consider the following factors:

(1) the existence of fraud or collusion behind the settlement;

(2) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the 

litigation;

(3) the stage of the proceeding and the amount of discovery 

completed;

(4) the probability of plaintiff’s success on the merits;

(5) the range of possible recovery; and

(6) the opinions of the counsel.

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

Hamilton v. Frito-Lay, Inc., No. 6:05-cv-592-Orl-22JGG, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10287 at 

*2-3, (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2007). The Court should be mindful of the strong presumption in 

favor of finding a settlement fair. Hamilton, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *2-3.

III. ALL OF THE RELEVANT CRITERIA SUPPORT THE FAIRNESS 

OF THE SETTLMENT

The settlement involves no fraud or collusion. The proposed settlement arises from 

an action brought by Plaintiff against her former employer, which was adversarial in nature. 

Case 2:20-cv-14144-JEM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 3 of 7
4

www.spirelawfirm.com

Employment Attorneys

Courts have found no fraud or collusion exists when both parties were represented by 

counsel and the amount paid to the plaintiff seemed fair. See Helms v. Central Fla. Reg. 

Hosp., No. 6:05-cv-383-Orl-22JGG, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92994 at *11-12 (M.D. Fla. 

2006). Here each Party was independently represented by experienced counsel and the 

settlement was negotiated between counsel, in consultation with the Parties. The 

undersigned counsel represent to the Court that there was no fraud or collusion and that all 

parties are in agreement. 

The probability of success on the merits, and the complexity, expense, and length 

of future litigation also militate in favor of this settlement. There are contested issues 

regarding whether the Plaintiff was an employee or independent contractor. This 

settlement, in the early stages of litigation, therefore, is a reasonable means for all parties 

to minimize future risks and litigation costs.

The Parties agree that they have been able to properly evaluate the claims and 

Plaintiff has at all times been represented by counsel. In agreeing upon the proposed 

settlement, the Parties had sufficient information and had conducted an adequate 

investigation to allow them to make an educated and informed analysis of the claims.

Counsel for Plaintiff and for Defendant believe the settlement to be fair and 

reasonable. 

IV. THE PROPOSED ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS ARE 

REASONABLE

As part of the Parties’ settlement, Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs were at all 

times negotiated separately from the amounts claimed by Plaintiff for her underlying 

claims and are not a function of any percentage of recovery. As the Court explained in 

Case 2:20-cv-14144-JEM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 4 of 7
5

www.spirelawfirm.com

Employment Attorneys

Bonetti v. Embarq Management Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68075 at *11-12 (M.D. Fla. 

Aug. 4, 2009), where a “plaintiff’s attorneys’ fee was agreed upon separately and 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.” Bonetti, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68075 at *15-16. 

In the instant action, Defendant’s payment for Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs 

provides for the resolution of all attorneys’ fees and costs allegedly owed to Plaintiff’s 

counsel. The Parties agreed on the additional amount of fees and costs to be paid to 

Plaintiff’s counsel after agreeing on the amounts to be paid to Plaintiff. Based upon the 

foregoing, the payment to Plaintiff’s Counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs constitutes a fair 

and reasonable compromise of same. 

V. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

The Parties hereby submit the terms of the settlement. As set forth in the attached 

Exhibit A, the Parties have agreed to settle this case as follows. Plaintiff will be paid 

$1,107.50 in lost wages (minus applicable taxes). Plaintiff will receive an equal amount 

($1,107.50) in liquidated damages. The $2,785.00 for attorney’s fees and costs was 

negotiated separately from the amounts paid to Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter an Order 

approving the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into by the Parties to the 

Case 2:20-cv-14144-JEM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 5 of 7
6

www.spirelawfirm.com

Employment Attorneys

instant action and dismissing this case, with prejudice, but retaining jurisdiction, as 

necessary to enforce the Settlement Agreement entered into by the Parties.

Respectfully submitted this 4th day of August, 2020. 

By: /s/ Christopher J. Saba

Christopher J. Saba, Esquire

Fla. Bar No: 0092016

WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.

1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300

Tampa, FL 33602

Telephone: (813) 224-0431

Facsimile: (813) 229-8712

csaba@wfclaw.com

By: /s/ Heather M. Meglino

Heather M. Meglino, Esquire

Florida Bar No: 91857

Spire Law, LLC

2572 West State Road 426, Suite 2088

Oviedo, FL 32765

Telephone: (407) 494-0135

heather@spirelawfirm.com

lauren@spirelawfirm.com

Case 2:20-cv-14144-JEM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 6 of 7
7

www.spirelawfirm.com

Employment Attorneys

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby Certify that on this 4th day of August, 2020, the foregoing was electronically 

filed with the Court by using the CM/ECF portal electronically filed with the Court by using the 

Southern District of Florida’s CM/ECF portal, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all 

parties of record.

/s/ Heather M. Meglino

Heather M. Meglino

Case 2:20-cv-14144-JEM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 7 of 7