UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-61282-VALLE

CONSENT CASE

RIGOBERTO SERRANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

TWIN STONE DESIGNS AND 

INSTALLATION, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Stipulation of Dismissal (ECF No. 40) (the 

“Stipulation”). Pursuant to the parties’ consent, this case is before the undersigned for all 

proceedings, including trial and entry of final judgment. See (ECF Nos. 36, 38).

This case includes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for alleged 

violations of the statutory minimum wage and overtime provisions. See 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.;

(ECF No. 1). On November 5, 2020, the parties settled the case during the settlement conference 

before the undersigned. (ECF No. 37). On November 30, 2020, the parties filed the Stipulation.

1

 

(ECF No. 40). 

1 Although the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal rather than a Motion to Dismiss as directed 

by the Court, see (ECF No. 39), based upon the record of the proceedings, including the settlement 

conference before undersigned, the Court finds the matter is appropriate for disposition.

Case 0:20-cv-61282-AOV Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2021 Page 1 of 3
2

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

court 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. See Leverso v. S. Trust Bank of Ala. Nat. Assoc., 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, the court may approve the settlement “to promote the policy of 

encouraging settlement in litigation.” Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354.

Here, the parties have submitted for Court approval the Settlement Agreement and Release 

(the “Settlement Agreement”). The Court has scrutinized the terms of the Settlement Agreement 

and 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 Court 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 and the amounts 

designated for attorney’s fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Settlement 

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

Case 0:20-cv-61282-AOV Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2021 Page 2 of 3
3

In addition, the Court considered “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, the Court finds that the amount of the settlement 

proceeds attributable to Plaintiff’s counsel’s legal fees is reasonable.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 

as follows:

(i) the Settlement Agreement is APPROVED;

(ii) The case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

(iii) The Court retains jurisdiction for thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to 

enforce the Settlement Agreement.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on January 7, 2021.

____________________________________

ALICIA O. VALLE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: All Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-61282-AOV Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2021 Page 3 of 3