IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 

Case No. 2:20-cv-14150-RLR 

WALTER KROLL, on his behalf and others 

similarly situated,, 

Plaintiff 

v. 

KVZ GOLF, LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company, d/b/a Palm Cove Golf 

and Yacht Club, 

Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

COLLECTIVE ACTION

JOINT MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

Plaintiff Walter Kroll and Defendant KVZ GOLF, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability 

Company, d/b/a Palm Cove Golf and Yacht Club (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their 

undersigned counsel, respectfully request a Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge and a 

corresponding stay of the case through the date of the Settlement Conference, and state as follows: 

1. The Court may order the Parties to appear at a settlement conference to facilitate 

settlement in this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a)(5). The District’s Local 

Rules permit such conferences to be conducted by a magistrate. See Rule 1(i)(2) of the Magistrate 

Rules of the Southern District of Florida. 

2. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 15, 2020, alleging violations of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the Florida Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”) 

(ECF No. 1). Defendant filed an Answer on August 7, 2020 (ECF No. 24) after Plaintiff amended 

his complaint on July 14, 2020 (ECF No. 12). This is a straight-forward and uncomplicated FLSA 

Case 2:20-cv-14150-SMM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 1 of 3
 

 2 

and FMWA case in which Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to pay him minimum wage from 

October 15, 2016, through April 10, 2020. 

3. Since then, the Parties engaged in settlement discussions, but unfortunately, these 

discussions stalled. Accordingly, the Parties believe that a magistrate-supervised settlement 

conference would be advantageous in bringing about the expedient resolution of this matter. 

Indeed, a magistrate supervised settlement conference will be the most effective method of 

imparting upon them the economic and legal realities of this lawsuit—thereby facilitating potential 

settlement—before they become further immersed in costly and time-consuming litigation. 

4. The parties do not agree on whether a stay of the proceedings, including discovery, 

is in order. Defendant believes that a stay of the proceedings is proper and will help in potentially 

resolving the case. 

5. For example, Plaintiff has served voluminous (and unnecessary) discovery 

requests, including 183 Request for Admissions, 79 Request for Production, and requested 5 

depositions, before the Settlement Conference will only serve to increase legal fees and costs, 

making the case more difficult to resolve. Additionally, staying the case is not sought for delay 

and no prejudice will result to either party. 

6. Plaintiff, however, refuses the stay and wants to proceed with the litigious related 

discovery, which will drive up fees and costs. 

WHEREFORE, and for good cause shown, the Parties respectfully request a Settlement 

Conference with a Magistrate Judge and a stay of the case through the date of the Settlement 

Conference or further jointly requested relief granted by the Court in connection with the 

Settlement Conference. 

Case 2:20-cv-14150-SMM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 2 of 3
 

 3 

Dated: October 23, 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Sherril M. Colombo 

Sherril M. Colombo, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 948799 

Stefanie M. Mederos, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 12041 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

Wells Fargo Center 

333 SE 2nd Avenue 

Suite 2700 

Miami, FL 33131 

E-Mail: scolombo@littler.com

E-mail: smederos@littler.com 

Telephone: (305) 400-7500 

Facsimile: (305) 603-2552 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

Case 2:20-cv-14150-SMM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 3 of 3