UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-14150-CIV-MAYNARD

WALTER KROLL,

Plaintiff,

v.

KVZ GOLF, LLC, 

d/b/a Palm Cove Golf and Yacht Club, and

MIROSLAV VOJTISEK,

Defendants.

________________________________________/

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT (DE 36) and ORDER DISMISSING THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE comes before this Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of 

Parties’ Settlement Agreement (DE 36) filed on December 21, 2020. Plaintiff initiated this action 

on May 15, 2020 for alleged minimum wage violations pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 

29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq., (“FLSA”) and Florida’s Minimum Wage Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.110. See 

DE 1. The parties (both of whom are represented by legal counsel) settled this FLSA lawsuit in 

its entirety after a Settlement Conference held with the Court on December 4, 2020. DE 32. They 

now move Court to approve of their Settlement Agreement, filed at Docket Entry 36-1; dismiss all 

claims with prejudice; and retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement for a period of 

30 days. DE 36.

When a private action is brought under the FLSA and is subsequently settled, “the district 

court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Lynn’s Food 

Stores, Inc. v. U.S., 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982) (internal citations omitted). In 

scrutinizing the settlement for fairness, a court must determine whether the settlement is a “fair 

Case 2:20-cv-14150-SMM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2021 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

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

679 F.2d at 1355. While the provisions of the Act are mandatory, the Eleventh Circuit has 

recognized that there may be bona fide disputes as to FLSA coverage and therefore a court may 

approve a settlement to “promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.” Id. at 1354. 

Where, as here, the settlement agreement was entered into in an adversarial context and both sides 

were represented by counsel throughout the litigation, the settlement agreement is “more likely to 

reflect a reasonable compromise over issues[.]”. Id.

This Court has reviewed that agreement and finds it to be a fair and reasonable resolution 

of the Plaintiff’s FLSA claims. See id. at 1353; see also, Silva v. Miller, 307 F. App’x 349 (11th 

Cir. 2009). This Court finds the amount that Plaintiff and his counsel each is recovering to be 

reasonable under the requirements of the above-cited case law. The Plaintiff is recovering wages 

and damages, and his attorney is recovering a separate award for fees and costs. The parties 

reached their compromise with the benefit of sufficient information and investigation. Although 

Defendants still dispute the merit of Plaintiff’s lawsuit, Defendants agree that the payments they 

are making constitute a fair compromise and will spare them additional litigation expense. This 

Court finds all other terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement reasonable, too. It is therefore,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Parties’

Settlement Agreement (DE 36) is GRANTED. It is further,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the parties’ Settlement Agreement (DE 36-1) is

APPROVED as a fair and reasonable resolution of the Plaintiff’s FLSA claims and this litigation 

on the whole. It is lastly,

Case 2:20-cv-14150-SMM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2021 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The 

Court retains jurisdiction over the parties’ Settlement Agreement for 30 days pursuant to the terms 

to which the parties stipulate at DE 36.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 20th day of January, 

2021.

______________________________

SHANIEK M. MAYNARD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-14150-SMM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2021 Page 3 of 3