UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-61358-VALLE

CONSENT CASE

ROBERT JOSEPH BRANDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGIAN COURT APARTMENT 

NORTH, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Motion for Approval of Parties’ Settlement 

and Dismissal with Prejudice (ECF No. 50) (the “Motion”).

1 Pursuant to the parties’ consent, this 

case is before the undersigned for all proceedings, including trial and entry of final judgment. See

(ECF Nos. 41, 42).

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 30, 2020, the parties settled the case during the settlement conference 

1 As used in this Motion and the Settlement Agreement (as defined below), “Parties” refers to 

Plaintiff Robert Joseph Brandon and Defendant Georgian Court Apartments, Inc. (“GC 

Apartments”). Co-Defendant Georgian Court Apartment North, Inc. (“GC North”) is not a party 

to this Motion. Rather, pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, GC North

made an offer of judgment, which Plaintiff accepted and filed on August 19, 2020. See (ECF 

No. 18). 

Case 0:20-cv-61358-AOV Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2021 Page 1 of 3
2

before the undersigned. (ECF No. 40). On March 2, 2021, the parties filed the Motion. 

(ECF No. 50). 

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 Mutual

General 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. Further, 

according to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff “is receiving 100% of his uncompromised 

claimed wages and liquidated damages from GC North.” Lastly, the Settlement Agreement 

Case 0:20-cv-61358-AOV Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2021 Page 2 of 3
3

provides the amounts related to GC Apartments that are 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.

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 solely against GC Apartments; and

(iii) The Court retains jurisdiction for forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order to 

enforce the Settlement Agreement.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on March 10, 2021.

____________________________________

ALICIA O. VALLE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: All Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-61358-AOV Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2021 Page 3 of 3