UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-22880-CIV-COOKE/GOODMAN

JOSHUA J. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DADE COUNTY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON FLSA SETTLEMENT 

United States District Judge Marcia G. Cooke referred the parties’ joint motion for 

settlement approval to the Undersigned. [ECF Nos. 20; 21]. The Undersigned held a 

fairness hearing on November 20, 2020, during which the Undersigned heard from 

counsel regarding the fairness of the settlement of Plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 

In general, the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA1 are 

mandatory and not subject to negotiation or bargaining between employers and 

employees. See Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945). However, there are 

two ways employees may settle and waive a claim against their employer for unpaid 

minimum wages or overtime pay under the FLSA: (1) if the payment of unpaid minimum 

1 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

Case 1:20-cv-22880-MGC Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2020 Page 1 of 4
2

wage/overtime pay is supervised by the Secretary of Labor; or (2) in a private lawsuit 

brought by an employee, if the parties present the district court with a proposed 

settlement and the court enters an order approving the fairness of the settlement. 

29 U.S.C. § 216(c); Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S., 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982); see 

also Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108 (1946). 

An employee may settle and release FLSA claims against his employer without the 

supervision of the Secretary of Labor if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the 

settlement occurs in an adversarial context; (2) there are issues of FLSA coverage and/or 

computations actually in dispute; and (3) the district court enters an order approving the 

settlement after scrutinizing the fairness of the settlement. Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 

1354.

The Undersigned considered the factors outlined in Lynn’s Food Stores and the 

strengths of the parties’ cases; the factual positions of the parties; the existence (or lack 

thereof) of documents supporting or corroborating the parties’ positions; the strengths

and weaknesses in the parties’ respective cases; and the parties’ desire to resolve the 

dispute sooner, rather than later.

The Undersigned finds that the settlement here represents a genuine compromise 

of a bona fide dispute. Defendant, who has denied liability, have agreed to pay Plaintiff 

more than it believes Plaintiff is due under the law. The parties have agreed to settle as a 

result of reasonable strategic and financial considerations.

Case 1:20-cv-22880-MGC Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2020 Page 2 of 4
3

The Undersigned also reviewed Plaintiffs’ counsel’s billing records. [ECF No. 23]. 

Those records show that Plaintiff’s counsel discounted their total fees and costs

significantly. Therefore, the Undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s counsel’s fees are 

reasonable in light of their agreement to accept less than the fee total.

The Undersigned also finds that the settlement occurred in an adversarial context 

and that there are genuine coverage and computation issues in dispute. The Undersigned

further finds that the settlement reached by the parties represents a reasonable 

compromise by both sides and is fair and reasonable. 

Accordingly, the Undersigned respectfully recommends that Judge Cooke find

that the parties’ settlement agreement is fair and reasonable, approve the settlement, and 

dismiss this action with prejudice. The Undersigned also recommends that Judge Cooke

reserve jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement, close the case, and 

deny all pending motions as moot.

Case 1:20-cv-22880-MGC Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2020 Page 3 of 4
4

OBJECTIONS2

The parties shall have one calendar day from the date of this report to file written 

objections, if any, with the District Judge. Each party may file a response to the other 

party’s objection within one calendar day from the date of the objection. Failure to timely 

file objections shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of 

an issue covered in the report, and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this report, except upon grounds 

of plain error and if necessary in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. 

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. 

R. 3-1 (2016).

RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on

November 20, 2020. 

Copies furnished to:

The Honorable Marcia G. Cooke

All counsel of record

2 The time for objections and responses is being shortened because counsel stated 

during the fairness hearing that they did have an objection to the Undersigned 

recommending that the settlement be approved and shortening the time to file objections 

to one day.

Case 1:20-cv-22880-MGC Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2020 Page 4 of 4