UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-60885-CIV-HUNT

CONSENT CASE

BRANDON THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FORT LAUDERDALE LAW GROUP

SOUTH, PLLC, 

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER 

THIS MATTER is before this Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement, for 

Sanctions and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Against Defendant. ECF No. 71. Pursuant to 

the Parties’ consent, this case is before the undersigned for all proceedings, including 

trial and entry of final judgment. See ECF Nos. 68, 69. Upon thorough and careful review 

of the record, the applicable law, the Motion, and being otherwise fully advised in the 

premises, Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 71, is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below. 

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. The Parties reached a settlement and submitted the settlement agreement 

for this Court’s approval. ECF No. 63. The undersigned approved the settlement 

agreement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the 

terms of the agreement for twenty-eight months from the date of dismissal. ECF No. 70.

Case 0:20-cv-60885-PMH Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2023 Page 1 of 3
2

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to make any payments since July 2022. 

Plaintiff contends that he has attempted to resolve the issue with Defendant’s counsel but 

has not been able to. As a result, Plaintiff moves this Court to enforce the settlement 

agreement against Defendant, require Defendant to immediately pay the balance of all 

missed payments, instruct Defendant to ensure timely payments are made for the 

remaining payments, and to award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,890. 

Defendant did not respond to the instant Motion. After the deadline to respond passed, 

the undersigned ordered Defendant to respond and warned that failure to respond may 

result in the Motion being considered as unopposed. Even then, Defendant failed to 

respond or otherwise appear to defend against the alleged violations. Accordingly, the 

Motion is unopposed. 

The enforcement of a settlement agreement falls outside the scope of ancillary 

jurisdiction of a federal court, even if the court had jurisdiction to hear the underlying case. 

Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2012); see also 

Slaughter v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 555 F. App’x 927, 929 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A claim for the 

enforcement of a settlement agreement is essentially a contract dispute for which there 

must be some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.”). However, a federal court can 

require compliance with a settlement agreement by specifically retaining jurisdiction to 

enforce the terms of the agreement. Anago, 677 F.3d at 1278. 

Here, the Court’s order approving the settlement agreement expressly 

retained jurisdiction over the agreement. ECF No. 25. The instant Motion was filed while 

the Court retained jurisdiction. Thus, this Court can enforce the agreement. 

Case 0:20-cv-60885-PMH Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2023 Page 2 of 3
3

Turning to the agreement, the agreement set out a detailed payment schedule. 

ECF No. 71-1. Defendant made timely payments until June 2022. Defendant did 

eventually make the June 2022 payment but has failed to make every monthly payment 

since. 

The undersigned finds, with no evidence to suggest otherwise, that Defendant has 

breached the settlement agreement and has failed to make payments for the following 

months: July 2022, August 2022, September 2022, October 2022, November 2022, 

December 2022, January 2023, February 2023, and March 2023. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

Motion is GRANTED. The undersigned orders Defendant to make the overdue 

payments no later than 5/31/2023. Defendant is further ordered to timely make any 

remaining payments. Further, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the 

undersigned finds that Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount 

$1,890 for having to bring the enforcement motion. ECF No. 71-1 at 4–5. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on May 11th, 

2023.

_____________________________________

PATRICK M. HUNT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

All Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-60885-PMH Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2023 Page 3 of 3