1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:20-cv-81337-WPD

ANGELINE JEAN BAPTISTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GASPETROL ENERGY 3 LLC d/b/a SUNOCO GAS 

STATION, a Florida Limited Liability Company and

SAMUEL GONZALEZ, an individual

Defendants.

______________________________________/

MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AND

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, ANGELINE JEAN BAPTISTE (“Jean Baptiste” or “Plaintiff”), by and through 

her undersigned counsel, in connection with the parties’ settlement in this case, hereby request 

that this Court approve their settlement and dismiss this matter with prejudice and state as 

follows:

1. On August 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendants 

GASPETROL ENERGY 3 LLC d/b/a SUNOCO GAS STATION and SAMUEL GONZALEZ

(“GasPetrol,” “Gonzalez,” and collectively “Defendants”), alleging overtime violations under the 

FLSA. The Parties have now resolved the Plaintiff’s claim in its entirety.

2. Plaintiff’s overtime claim arose from her allegations that she worked for 

Defendants as a Cashier and not properly compensated for hours worked over forty in each 

workweek. No official appearance has been made for Defendants but Defendants are represented 

by Troy Nader, Esq., who negotiated the settlement on behalf of Defendants. The Parties 

engaged in good faith settlement negotiations, and to avoid the uncertainty and continued costs 

Case 9:20-cv-81337-WPD Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2020 Page 1 of 7
2

of litigation, reached a settlement agreement with no admission of liability. The Parties’ 

agreement is memorialized in a Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”), which is attached hereto 

at Exhibit A for the Court’s review and approval and which includes the full breakdown of 

payments to Plaintiff. 

3. Importantly, with respect to her FLSA claims, Plaintiff is receiving what she now 

acknowledges to be the full amount of the relief she could receive if this matter was to go to trial. 

She is receiving this amount even though her overtime claim was hotly disputed. Significantly, 

Defendants believe that although Plaintiff is not entitled to the overtime benefits conferred in the 

Settlement Agreement, she is receiving significant value to resolve her claims. The parties jointly 

agree that the terms of their settlement are appropriate in light of all of the facts and legal 

standards applicable in this case, and both the cost of protracted litigation and the risk of each 

side winning or losing was taken into account in the parties agreeing upon the resolution 

memorialized in their Settlement Agreement.

4. In accordance with Eleventh Circuit precedent, judicial review and approval of an 

FLSA settlement provides final and binding effect. Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Labor, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982). As the Eleventh Circuit held in Lynn’s Food,

“[t]here are only two ways in which back wage claims arising 

under the FLSA can be settled or compromised by employees. 

First, under section 216(c), the Secretary of Labor is authorized to 

supervise payment to employees of unpaid wages owed to them . . 

. . The only other route for compromise of FLSA claims is 

provided in the context of suits brought directly by employees 

against their employer under section 216(b) to recover back wages 

for FLSA violations. When employees bring a private action for 

back wages under the FLSA, and present to the district court a 

proposed settlement, the district court may enter a stipulated 

judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” 

Id. at 1352-53. 

Case 9:20-cv-81337-WPD Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2020 Page 2 of 7
3

5. Pursuant to Lynn’s Food, the Court’s review of the Parties’ Agreement is to 

determine if it is “a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.” Id. at 1354-55. If the 

settlement reflects a reasonable compromise over issues that are actually in dispute, the Court 

may approve the settlement “in order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of 

litigation.” Id. at 1354. In determining whether the settlement is fair and reasonable, the Court 

may consider the following factors: 

(1) the existence of fraud or 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 plaintiff's success on the merits: 

(5) the range of possible recovery; and 

(6) the opinions of the counsel. 

See, e.g., Leverso v. South Trust Bank of Ala., Nat. Assoc., 18 F.3d 1527. 1531 n.6 (11th Cir. 

1994); Hamilton v. Frito-Lay, Inc., No. 6:05-cv-592-Orl-22JGG, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10287 

at *2-3, (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2007). The Court should be mindful of the strong presumption in favor 

of finding a settlement fair. Hamilton, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at * 2-3. 

6. At all times material hereto, the Parties have been represented by counsel and 

Plaintiff’s counsel is especially very experienced in the litigation of FLSA claims and the 

settlement amount and the final Settlement Agreement were the subject of arms-length 

negotiations. Furthermore, as discussed above, Plaintiff’s FLSA claim was resolved for what 

Plaintiff now acknowledges is the full amount she could recover if this matter went to trial. 

Plaintiff therefore respectfully submits that the Agreement the parties have entered into is 

consistent with the intent and purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the requirements on 

Lynn’s Food, as all of the relevant criteria support approval of the ultimate settlement in this 

matter. 

Case 9:20-cv-81337-WPD Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2020 Page 3 of 7
4

7. Additionally, there has been no collusion, fraud, or any other inappropriate 

conduct by either Plaintiff or Defendants with respect to the settlement ultimately agreed upon. 

Courts have found no fraud or collusion where both parties were represented by counsel and the 

amount to be paid to the plaintiff seemed fair. See Helms v. Central Fla. Reg. Hosp., 2006 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 92994 at *11-12 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2006). Based on the amount to be paid to 

Plaintiff, as well as the separate amount to be paid to her counsel, the Parties believe it is 

transparent that there was no fraud or collusion. The probability of success on the merits and 

length of future litigation also militate in favor of this settlement. If the Parties continued to 

litigate this matter, they would be forced to engage in costly litigation in order to prove their 

claims and defenses. This settlement, therefore, is a reasonable means for all Parties to minimize 

future risks and litigation costs. 

8. Further, the attorney’s fees and costs agreed upon to be paid by Defendants under 

the Parties’ settlement were never (and are not) a percentage of any total recovery in this case 

such that there is no correlation between the amount of monetary consideration being paid to 

Plaintiff and the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs being paid by Defendants on Plaintiff’s 

behalf. See 29 U.S.C. §216(b); Kreager v. Solomon & Flanagan, P.A., 775 F. 2d 1541, 1542 

(11th Cir. 1985). Rather, Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs in this case are separate and apart 

from the amounts to be paid to Plaintiff under the Parties’ Agreement, and the amounts being 

paid to Plaintiff under the Parties’ settlement were negotiated based upon the value of all of the 

claims asserted, including the overtime wages claimed by Plaintiff, with Plaintiff’s attorney’s 

fees and costs reviewed and negotiated separately. As the Middle District of Florida explained in 

Bonetti v. Embarq Management Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68075 at *11-12 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 

2009), where a “plaintiff’s attorneys’ fee was agreed upon separately and without regard to the 

Case 9:20-cv-81337-WPD Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2020 Page 4 of 7
5

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 her attorney, the Court will approve the settlement without separately considering 

the reasonableness of the fee to be paid to plaintiff's counsel. However, if the Parties can only 

agree as to the amount to be paid to the plaintiff, the Court will continue the practice of 

determining a reasonable fee using the lodestar approach.” 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68075 at *15-

16. Here, Defendants have agreed to pay to resolve all of Plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees 

and costs incurred in this action, including the filing fee and service of process costs. Defendants

agree and acknowledge that the sums to be paid by it under the Settlement Agreement for 

Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs are reasonable based upon the circumstances herein, and the 

amounts to be paid by Defendants satisfies any and all amounts Plaintiff owes to her attorney. 

9. Finally, the parties’ settlement herein, and the Settlement Agreement being 

submitted for review and approval by the Court, includes every term and condition of the parties’ 

settlement, such that there are no side deals or other terms outside of those being provided to the 

Court for review.

10. Based upon the foregoing, the parties believe the settlement terms are fair, 

reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this 

Motion for Approval of the Settlement and enter a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice in 

this action. 

11. As a condition for dismissal, the Parties agree to dismissal of this action on the 

condition that the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

See, Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1280 (11th Cir. 2012). 

Case 9:20-cv-81337-WPD Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2020 Page 5 of 7
6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court issue an Order: (1) approving the 

Parties’ settlement; and (2) dismissing this action with prejudice.

Dated: September 17, 2020

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES EISS, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 112

Plantation, Florida 33324

(954) 914-7890 (Telephone)

(855) 423-5298 (Facsimile)

By: /s/ Charles Eiss

CHARLES M. EISS, Esq.

Fla. Bar #612073

chuck@icelawfirm.com

TIEXIN YANG, Esq.

Fla. Bar #1010651

tiexin@icelawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 17th day of September, 2020, I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the 

attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic 

Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties 

who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Charles Eiss

CHARLES EISS, ESQ. 

Case 9:20-cv-81337-WPD Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2020 Page 6 of 7
7

SERVICE LIST

United States District Court

Southern District of Florida

Jean Baptiste v. GasPetrol Energy 3 LLC et al.

Case No. 9:20-cv-81337-WPD

Charles M. Eiss, Esq. (612073)

Email: chuck@icelawfirm.com

Tiexin Yang, Esq. (1010651)

Email: tiexin@icelawfirm.com

Law Offices of Charles Eiss, P.L.

7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 112

Plantation, Florida 33324

Tel: (954) 914-7890

Fax: (855) 423-5298

Counsel for Plaintiff

Troy Nader, Esq.

Email: troynaderesq@yahoo.com

LAW OFFICES OF TROY NADER

14335 SW 120th ST. Suite 103

Miami, FL 33186

Tel: (305) 752-4999

Counsel for Defendants

Method of Service: CM/ECF.

Case 9:20-cv-81337-WPD Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2020 Page 7 of 7