UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-22165-CIV-GOODMAN

JUAN A. CALDERON,

Plaintiff, 

v.

STUART SUPREME, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING FLSA SETTLEMENT AND CLOSING CASE

The Court held a telephonic fairness hearing on August 26, 2020 and heard from 

counsel regarding the fairness of the settlement of Plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. [ECF Nos. 36; 38].

In general, the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA are 

mandatory and not subject to negotiation or bargaining between employers and 

employees. See Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945). But there are two ways 

employees may settle and waive a claim against their employer for unpaid minimum 

wages or overtime pay under the FLSA: (1) if the payment of unpaid minimum 

wage/overtime pay is supervised by the Secretary of Labor or (2) in a private lawsuit 

brought by an employee, if the parties present the district court with a proposed 

settlement and the court enters an order approving the fairness of the settlement. 

Case 1:20-cv-22165-JG Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

29 U.S.C. § 216(c); Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S., 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982); see 

also Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108 (1946). 

An employee may settle and release FLSA claims against his employer without the 

supervision of the Secretary of Labor if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the 

settlement occurs in an adversarial context; (2) there are issues of FLSA coverage and/or 

computations actually in dispute; and (3) the district court enters an order approving the 

settlement after scrutinizing the fairness of the settlement. Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 

1354.

The Court considered the factors outlined in Lynn’s Food Stores and also considered 

the strengths of the parties’ cases; the factual positions of the parties; the existence (or 

lack thereof) of documents supporting or corroborating the parties’ positions; the 

strengths and weaknesses in the parties’ respective cases; and the parties’ desire to 

resolve the dispute sooner, rather than later.

The Court finds that the settlement here represents a genuine compromise of a 

bona fide dispute. Defendants, who have denied liability, have agreed to pay Plaintiff 

more than they believe Plaintiff is due under the law. All parties have agreed to settle as 

a result of reasonable strategic and financial considerations. 

The Undersigned also reviewed Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing records. [ECF No. 37-

1]. Those records show that Plaintiff’s counsel is recovering significantly less in attorney’s 

fees and costs than actually incurred in this matter, based on standard billing rates. 

Case 1:20-cv-22165-JG Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 2 of 3
3

Therefore, the settlement is reasonable not just when viewed in light of Plaintiff’s claims 

against Defendants (and Defendants’ defenses to those claims), but also in light of the 

amounts that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel will each receive. 

In addition, the Court finds that the settlement here occurred in an adversarial 

context, and there are genuine coverage and computation issues in dispute. The Court 

further finds that the settlement reached by the parties represents a reasonable 

compromise by both sides and is fair and reasonable.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the parties’ settlement 

agreement is fair and reasonable, the settlement is APPROVED, and this action is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the terms of 

the parties’ settlement. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE and deny all pending 

motions as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 26, 2020.

Copies furnished to: 

All counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-22165-JG Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 3 of 3