UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-cv-14163-MIDDLEBROOKS

LETICIA C. MATEO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EL CHURRASCO GRILL, LLC.,

and EVER SANTIZO GONZALEZ, individually,

Defendants,

_________________________________________/

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER APPROVING 

SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, LETICIA C. MATEO, (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), and Defendants, EL 

CHURRASCO GRILL, LLC., and EVER SANTIZO GONZALEZ, individually (hereinafter, 

collectively as “Defendants”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby file 

this Joint Motion for Entry of Order Approving Settlement and jointly request that this Honorable 

Court approve the settlement reached in this matter and dismiss this case with prejudice, and in 

support thereof, state:

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

I. Legal Principles

This is an action brought by Plaintiff for alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. Defendants have denied any and all liability 

with regards to Plaintiff’s claims, including the amounts of any alleged unpaid overtime wages in 

this action.

Case 2:20-cv-14163-DMM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2020 Page 1 of 7
2

Pursuant to the case law regarding settlement of FLSA claims, there are two ways in which 

contested claims under the FLSA can be settled and released by employees. First, section 216(c) of 

the FLSA allows employees to settle and waive their claims under the FLSA if the payment of unpaid 

wages by the employer to the employee is supervised by the Secretary of Labor. See 29 U.S.C. 

216(c); Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982). Second, in 

the context of a private lawsuit brought by an employee against an employer under section 216(b) 

of the FLSA, an employee may settle and release FLSA claims against an employer if the parties 

present the district court with a proposed settlement and the district court enters an Order approving 

the settlement. Id. In detailing the circumstances justifying court approval of an FLSA settlement 

in a litigation context, the Eleventh Circuit stated as follows:

Settlements may be permissible in the context of a suit brought by employees under 

the FLSA for back wages because initiation of the action by the employees provides 

some assurance of an adversarial context. The employees are likely to be 

represented by an attorney who can protect their rights under the statute. Thus, 

when the parties submit a settlement to the court for approval, the settlement is 

more likely to reflect a reasonable compromise of disputed issues than a mere 

waiver of statutory rights brought by an employer’s overreaching. If a settlement in 

an employee FLSA suit does reflect a reasonable compromise over issues, such as 

FLSA coverage or computation of back wages that are actually in dispute, we allow 

the district court to approve the settlement in order to promote the policy of 

encouraging settlement of litigation.

Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354.

The settlement of the instant action involves a situation in which the Court may approve the 

Parties’ settlement to resolve and release Plaintiff’s FLSA claims against Defendants. The proposed 

settlement arises out of an action brought by Plaintiff against her alleged former employers, which 

was adversarial in nature.

The Parties agree that the instant action involves disputed issues. Although Defendants 

dispute their liability for the allegedly owed overtime wage payments to Plaintiff, they have agreed 

Case 2:20-cv-14163-DMM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2020 Page 2 of 7
3

to pay Plaintiff in full settlement of the disputed claims to resolve the lawsuit without further 

litigation and limit the expenses and costs associated with further litigation.

II. Terms of Settlement

1. This case involves claims made by Plaintiff for alleged unpaid overtime wages under the 

FLSA. Plaintiff filed her complaint on May 25th, 2020. [D.E. #1]

2. On or about September 11th, 2020, at the Settlement Conference conducted by the 

Honorable Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard, with the help of Magistrate Judge 

Maynard the parties were able to reach a settlement between them that resolved all of 

Plaintiff’s claims, including those for attorney’s fees and costs.

3. Plaintiff and Defendants herein state that the settlement reached between them with respect 

to Plaintiff’s claimed FLSA damages represents a fair and reasonable resolution of disputed 

claims and that the terms of the settlement are acceptable to both Plaintiff and Defendants. 

Specifically, based upon their respective estimates of Plaintiff’s underlying claims and her

claims for attorney’s fees and costs, the parties negotiated the settlement amount herein. 

4. In settlement, Plaintiff LETICIA C. MATEO, will be paid a total of $5,000.00 as full relief 

and compensation of any alleged unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and any other 

claims she may have against Defendants. From the total amount of $5,000.00, $2,500.00 

shall be allocated as “wages”, and $2,500.00 shall be allocated as “liquidated damages”.

5. The parties agree that upon careful review of Plaintiff’s dates of alleged employment; hours 

and weeks which Plaintiff worked; time and pay records; corporate tax returns, and all 

available evidence pertaining to Plaintiff’s employment and the issues of enterprise and 

individual coverage, this amount represents a fair and reasonable compromise of the 

disputed claims. This is even more so in light of the fact that upon review of the Defendant 

Case 2:20-cv-14163-DMM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2020 Page 3 of 7
4

corporation’s tax returns, the Defendant corporation appeared not to be a covered enterprise 

under the FLSA. While Plaintiff disputed the issues of enterprise and individual coverage, 

it was in the best interest of the parties to amicably reach a resolution.

6. The parties also agree that there are genuine disputes as to whether or not Plaintiff worked 

the alleged number of weeks in the relevant time period; whether or not Plaintiff worked 

the alleged number of hours on a weekly basis; whether or not Plaintiff was terminated and 

whether or not there was individual coverage. Consequentially, Plaintiff’s recovery at trial 

could have been minimal or there could have been no recovery at all had Defendants been 

able to establish their defenses, and/or Plaintiff not been able to establish enterprise or 

individual coverage.

7. Accordingly, the amount of this settlement to Plaintiff is fair and reasonable given that: 

Plaintiff will be receiving substantial compensation for her FLSA claims; Plaintiff’s claims 

are highly disputed; the issues of material fact which are in dispute; and the fact that 

Plaintiff’s recovery could have been minimal or non-existent had Defendants prevailed on 

their defenses at trial, including the lack of enterprise coverage. Additionally, this 

settlement is also reasonable given the high costs of defending and litigating this matter 

further and the time and resources which would have been expended by both parties in 

taking this mater to trial. This settlement was arrived at after considerable negotiation by 

the parties, and Defendants do not admit any liability in this action.

8. Separate and apart, Plaintiff’s counsel shall receive $6,000.00 in attorney’s fees and 

$1,000.00 in costs, which have been incurred to date in this action, including preparation 

and/or review of all settlement documents. Plaintiff’s counsel, who has over 14 years of 

experience litigating employment related matters, charges an hourly rate of $375.00. 

Case 2:20-cv-14163-DMM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2020 Page 4 of 7
5

Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $375.00 has been consistently approved and deemed 

reasonable by this Court as well as Courts in the Middle District of Florida. See Abreu v. 

Free Flow Constr., Inc., Case No. 18-20244, 2018 WL 6492904, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 

2018) (adopting Report and Recommendation recommending that Zandro E. Palma, Esq.'s 

requested rate of $375 was reasonable); see also Ruiz, et. Al. v. Global Fish Handlers, 

Corp., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-25205-JEM, [D.E.#65], (S.D. Fla. April 4, 2019) (“This 

Court has previously awarded Mr. Palma attorney's fees at a rate of $375 per hour. The 

Court finds that $375 is a reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Palma.”) Plaintiff’s counsel has 

expended over 34 hours on this matter to date, which includes time spent engaging in 

discovery, attorney-client communications, settlement negotiations, settlement conference

and other off-the-record activity. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff’s counsel’s attorney’s fees and 

costs were substantially reduced in good faith in order to facilitate settlement. 

Consequentially, Plaintiff’s recovery was not adversely affected by the amount of fees and 

costs to be paid to her attorney.

9. The parties’ settlement agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A for the Court’s 

consideration.

10. The attached agreement includes every term and condition of the parties’ settlement.

11. Having agreed to the terms of the settlement reached, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully 

request that this Honorable Court approve the settlement between the parties.

12. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that this Court approve the Settlement 

attributed to Plaintiff’s FLSA claims. Moreover, the parties stipulate to dismissal of this 

action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), provided that the Court 

enters an order retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement, and otherwise 

Case 2:20-cv-14163-DMM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2020 Page 5 of 7
6

deny any pending motions as moot.

13. A proposed order is provided herewith.

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that this Honorable Court approve the 

parties’ settlement, dismisses this action with prejudice, and retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms 

of the settlement agreement.

DATED this 16th day of September 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Zandro E. Palma_________ /s/Ena T. Diaz_________

Zandro E. Palma, Esq. Ena T. Diaz, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 0024031 Florida Bar No. 0090999

ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. ENA T. DIAZ, P.A.

9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 999 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 720

Miami, Florida 33156 Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone No.: (305) 446-1500 Tel.: (305) 377-8828

Facsimile No.: (305) 446-1502 Fax: (305) 356-1311

zep@ThePalmaLawGroup.com E-mail: ediaz@enadiazlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendants

Case 2:20-cv-14163-DMM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2020 Page 6 of 7
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-cv-14163-MIDDLEBROOKS

LETICIA C. MATEO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EL CHURRASCO GRILL, LLC.,

and EVER SANTIZO GONZALEZ, individually,

Defendants,

_________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 

APPROVE THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Order 

Approving Settlement and Dismissing the Case with Prejudice, and the Court having reviewed the 

motion and the file in this cause, having noted the agreement of the parties and being otherwise 

fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the parties’ settlement is hereby APPROVED. It is 

further ordered that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court shall retain 

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement should such enforcement 

become necessary. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in West Palm Beach, Florida this _____ day of 

September, 2020.

_______________________________

DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to:

All Counsel of Record

Case 2:20-cv-14163-DMM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2020 Page 7 of 7