UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-61025-CIV-HUNT

CONSENT CASE

NOUREDDIN MAHMOUD ABDULAAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEAUTY DISCOUNT ZONE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 

THIS MATTER is before this Court following a July 23, 2020 fairness hearing on 

the Parties’ settlement agreement. Pursuant to the Parties’ consent, this case is before 

the undersigned for all proceedings, including trial and entry of final judgment. See ECF 

No. 26.

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. Before this Court can dismiss this case and approve a settlement of the FLSA 

claims, the undersigned must scrutinize the settlement and determine that it is a “fair and 

reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Lynn’s Food Stores, 

Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982). In doing so, courts consider 

various factors, including: (1) the possible existence of collusion behind the settlement; 

(2) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the 

proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the probability of the plaintiff’s 

success on the merits; (5) the range of possible recovery; and (6) the opinions of counsel. 

Case 0:20-cv-61025-PMH Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

See Leverso v. S. Tr. Bank of Ala. Nat’l Ass’n, 18 F.3d 1527, 1531 n.6 (11th Cir. 1994); 

see also McHone v. Donald P. Hoekstra Plumbing, Inc., No. 10-CV-60322, 2010 WL 

4625999, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2010); Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 

1241 (M.D. Fla. 2010). In the end, if the settlement reflects a reasonable compromise 

over FLSA issues that are actually in dispute, this Court may approve the settlement “to 

promote the policy of encouraging settlement in litigation.” Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d 

at 1354.

Here, this Court reviewed the Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement 

Agreement”). In scrutinizing the Settlement Agreement, this Court considered the above 

factors, the overall strengths and weaknesses of the Parties’ respective positions, and 

the Parties’ desire to resolve this case sooner rather than later to avoid the costs and 

uncertainty of litigation. The undersigned also considered that Plaintiff’s claims were 

disputed as to liability and amount and that all parties were represented by counsel. 

Lastly, the Settlement Agreement specifies the portion of the settlement amount to be 

paid to Plaintiff as wages and liquidated damages and the amount designated for 

attorney’s fees and costs. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is 

a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide FLSA dispute. 

In addition, this Court reviewed “the reasonableness of [Plaintiff’s] counsel’s legal 

fees to assure both that counsel is compensated adequately and that no conflict of interest 

taints the amount the wronged employee recovers under a settlement agreement.” Silva 

v. Miller, 307 F. App’x 349, 351 (11th Cir. 2009). Having done so, this Court finds that 

the amount of the settlement proceeds attributable to Plaintiff’s counsel’s legal fees is 

reasonable.

Case 0:20-cv-61025-PMH Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

(1) The Parties’ Settlement Agreement is APPROVED, and this case is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

(2) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and to DENY any pending 

motions as moot.

(3) This Court will retain jurisdiction for sixty (60) days from the date of this 

order.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on July 24, 2020.

_____________________________________

PATRICK M. HUNT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

All Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-61025-PMH Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 3 of 3