UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-22168-CIV-COOKE/GOODMAN

ADAN ALEJO ALEA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES INC.,

PROFESSIONAL OCEAN SERVICE CORP.,

ANJA CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CORP.,

ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, individually,

and JANETTE SUAREZ, individually,

Defendants,

__________________________________________/

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER APPROVING 

SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, ADAN ALEJO ALEA, (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), and Defendants, AEROWAYS 

STAFFING SERVICES INC., PROFESSIONAL OCEAN SERVICE CORP., ANJA 

CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CORP., ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, and JANETTE 

SUAREZ (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 and minimum wages, as 

well as retaliation, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. Section 210 et. seq. 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-MGC Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2021 Page 1 of 9
Defendants have denied any and all liability with regards to Plaintiff’s claims, including the amount 

of any alleged unpaid wages and retaliation in this action.

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 his alleged former employers, which 

was adversarial in nature.

Case 1:20-cv-22168-MGC Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2021 Page 2 of 9
The Parties agree that the instant action involves disputed issues. Although Defendants 

dispute their liability for the allegedly owed overtime and minimum wage payments to Plaintiff, they 

have ultimately agreed to pay Plaintiff in full settlement of the disputed claims.

With regards to legal fees, a court reviewing an FLSA settlement must review “the 

reasonableness of 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, 2009 WL 73164, *2 (11th Cir. Jan. 13, 2009). In the wake of Silva, 

persuasive district court authority has deemed scrutiny of the reasonableness of plaintiff’s agreedupon attorney’s fees to be unnecessary in an FLSA settlement where “the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fee 

was agreed upon separately and without regard to the amount paid to the plaintiff,” except in 

circumstances where “the settlement does not appear reasonable on its face or there is reason to 

believe that the plaintiff’s recovery was adversely affected by the amount of fees paid to his 

attorney.” Bonetti, 715 F. Supp.2d at 12281; see also Wing v. Plann B Corp., 2012 WL 4746258, 

*4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2012) (declining to examine reasonableness of attorney’s fee payment in 

FLSA settlement where the FLSA claims were compromised, there was a reasonable basis for such 

compromise, and “Plaintiff’s claims were resolved separately and apart from the issue of attorneys’ 

fees,” such that “there is no reason to believe that Plaintiff’s recovery was adversely affected by 

the amount of fees and costs to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel”).

1

In Bonetti, the court explained: "if the parties submit a proposed FLSA settlement that, (1) constitutes a compromise 

of the plaintiff's claims, (2) makes a full and adequate disclosure of the terms of settlement, including the factors and 

reasons considered in reaching same and justifying the compromise of the plaintiff's claims, and (3) represents that 

the plaintiff's attorneys' fee was agreed upon separately and without regard to the amount paid to the plaintiff, then, 

unless the settlement does not appear reasonable on its face or there is reason to believe that the plaintiff's recovery 

was adversely affected by the amount of fees paid to his attorney, the Court will approve the settlement without 

separately considering the reasonableness of the fee to be paid to plaintiff's counsel." Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt. Co.,

715 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1228 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

Case 1:20-cv-22168-MGC Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2021 Page 3 of 9
As explained in Bonetti v. Embarq Management Company, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1228 

(M.D. Fla. 2009), “the best way to insure that no conflict [of interest between an attorney’s 

economic interests and those of his client] has tainted the settlement is for the parties to reach 

agreement as to the plaintiff’s recovery before the fees of the plaintiff’s counsel are considered. If 

these matters are addressed independently and seriatim, there is no reason to assume that the 

lawyer’s fee has influenced the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s settlement.” In Bonetti, Judge 

Presnell concluded:

[I]f the parties submit a proposed FLSA settlement that, (1) constitutes a 

compromise of the plaintiff’s claims; (2) makes full and adequate disclosure of the 

terms of settlement, including the factors and reasons considered in reaching same 

and justifying the compromise of the plaintiff’s claims; and (3) represents that the 

plaintiff’s attorneys’ fee was agreed upon separately and without regard to the 

amount paid to the plaintiff, then, unless the settlement does not appear reasonable 

on its face or there is reason to believe that the plaintiff’s recovery was adversely 

affected by the amount of fees paid to his attorney, the Court will approve the 

settlement without separately considering the reasonableness of the fee to be paid 

to plaintiff’s counsel.

Id.

II. Terms of Settlement

1. This case involves claims made by Plaintiff for alleged unpaid overtime and minimum

wages, as well as retaliation, under the FLSA. 

2. On or about July 10

th, 2020, after extensive negotiations held from the onset of this action, 

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 his

Case 1:20-cv-22168-MGC Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2021 Page 4 of 9
claims for attorney’s fees and costs, the parties negotiated the settlement amount herein. 

4. In settlement, Plaintiff ADAN ALEJO ALEA will be paid a total of $15,000.00 as full 

relief and compensation of any alleged unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated 

damages, and any other damages claimed against Defendants. From the total amount of 

$15,000.00, $7,500.00 shall be allocated in satisfaction of Plaintiff’s claims for “wages”, 

and $7,500.00 shall be allocated in satisfaction of Plaintiff’s claims for “liquidated 

damages”. The parties agree that upon careful review of Plaintiff’s dates of employment; 

hours and weeks which Plaintiff worked; time and pay records; and all available evidence 

pertaining to Plaintiff’s employment, this amount represents a fair and reasonable 

compromise of the disputed claims.

5. Notwithstanding, the parties agree that there are genuine disputes as to whether or not 

Plaintiff worked the alleged number of hours on a weekly basis; whether or not Plaintiff 

was in fact paid properly for all hours he allegedly worked, including overtime; whether or 

not Plaintiff was in fact properly compensated for meal periods he allegedly did not take;

and whether or not Plaintiff was subjected to any sort of retaliation in this matter. 

Additionally, and of greater significance, is the fact that there are genuine disputes as to 

whether or not the time Plaintiff spent waiting to commence work was compensable or not 

– given that Defendants contend that Plaintiff spent the time in question “waiting to be 

engaged” rather than “engaged to be waiting”, and therefore such time would not be 

compensable. Consequentially, Plaintiff could have been barred from any recovery with 

regards to his claims for unpaid wages and retaliation should Defendants had prevailed on 

their defenses. 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22168-MGC Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2021 Page 5 of 9
Plaintiff will be receiving substantial compensation for his unpaid overtime, minimum 

wage, and retaliation claims; Plaintiff’s claims are highly disputed; the issues of material 

fact which are in dispute; and the fact that Plaintiffs could be barred from recovery in this 

matter should he not be able to establish his claims at trial in this matter. 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.

7. Separate and apart, Plaintiff’s counsel shall receive $6,875.00 in attorney’s fees and 

$625.00 in costs, for a total of $7,500.00, 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. Plaintiffs’ 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. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel has expended over 20 hours on this matter to date, which includes time 

spent negotiating settlement, conducting informal discovery, extensive document review, 

attorney-client communications, and other off-the-record activity. Moreover, the amount 

allocated to Plaintiff’s counsel’s fees and costs also include hours to be incurred in the 

management and administration of a 5-month “installment payment plan” with the 

Defendants. These additional fees include approximately 3-4 hours to be incurred in the 

management and administration of the 5-month “installment payment plan.” 

Notwithstanding, Plaintiff’s counsel’s attorney’s fees and costs were negotiated separate 

and apart and the amount of fees and costs negotiated did not compromise in any way the 

Case 1:20-cv-22168-MGC Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2021 Page 6 of 9
amount allocated to Plaintiff. Consequentially, Plaintiff’s recovery was not adversely 

affected by the amount of fees and costs to be paid to his attorney.

8. As set forth by the cited authority above, because attorney’s fees and costs were determined 

separately and apart from Plaintiff’s recovery, this Honorable Court should find that the 

settlement and attorney’s fees were agreed upon without compromising the amount paid to 

Plaintiff.

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 

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 22nd day of January, 2021.

Case 1:20-cv-22168-MGC Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2021 Page 7 of 9
Respectfully submitted,

/s/Zandro E. Palma_________ /s/Stephanie Pidermann_________

Zandro E. Palma, Esq. Stephanie Pidermann, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 0024031 Florida Bar No. 

ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. LYDECKER DIAZ

9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. 1221 Brickell Avenue

Suite 1500 19th Floor

Miami, Florida 33156 Miami, Florida 60414

Telephone No.: (305) 446-1500 Telephone: (305) 416-3180

Facsimile No.: (305) 446-1502 Facsimile:

zep@ThePalmaLawGroup.com Email: ep@lydeckerdiaz.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants

Case 1:20-cv-22168-MGC Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2021 Page 8 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-22168-CIV-COOKE/GOODMAN

ADAN ALEJO ALEA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AEROWAYS STAFFING SERVICES INC.,

PROFESSIONAL OCEAN SERVICE CORP.,

ANJA CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CORP.,

ANTONIO C. HESPANHOL, individually,

and JANETTE SUAREZ, 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 retains 

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

necessary. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Miami-Dade County, Florida this _____ day of 

January, 2021.

_______________________________

MARCIA G. COOKE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to:

All Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22168-MGC Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2021 Page 9 of 9