UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO. 0:20-cv-61690-AHS

DEBRON WALLEN, 

SANJAY SHAKES, Individually and 

On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SVENSK MANAGEMENT, INC.

and RICHARD FERNBACH,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

JOINT MOTION REQUESTING ORDER APPROVING 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND TO DISMISS LAWSUIT WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff DEBRON WALLEN (“Plaintiff Wallen”), Plaintiff SANJAY SHAKES 

(“Plaintiff Shakes”), Opt-in Plaintiff Millet Charles (“Opt-in Plaintiff Charles), and Opt-in Plaintiff 

Orlando Foster (“Opt-in Plaintiff Foster”) along with Defendant SVENSK MANAGEMENT, 

INC. (“Defendant Svensk”) and Defendant RICHARD FERNBACH (“Defendant Fernbach”), by 

and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby file this Joint Motion Requesting Order 

Approving Settlement Agreement and to Dismiss Lawsuit With Prejudice. The parties state the 

following in support:

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On or about August 20, 2020, Plaintiff Wallen and Plaintiff Shakes, formerly 

employed by Defendant Svensk as Pool Service Technicians, filed the instant action alleging that 

Defendants failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”). See ECF No. 1. They filed the case as a collective action, brought on behalf of a class 

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2021 Page 1 of 6
2

of similarly situated individuals (i.e., current and former Pool Service Technicians). Id. Opt-in 

Plaintiff Charles and Opt-in Plaintiff Foster filed consents to join the instant action on November 

6, 2020. See ECF Nos. 18, 19.

2. On January 27, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a conditional certification motion, which the 

Court granted on March 22, 2021. See ECF Nos. 26, 31.

3. Notice was issued to approximately 55 current and former employees on April 23, 

2021, with a June 7, 2021 deadline to return a signed consent form. The only individual who 

returned a signed consent form was Tony Izev, who was employed from September 4, 2019 to 

September 17, 2019. However, Mr. Izev subsequently indicated that he had never actually worked 

as a Pool Service Technician, and so he did not participate any further in this action. Thus, the 

case proceeded with Plaintiff Wallen, Plaintiff Shakes, Opt-in Plaintiff Charles, and Opt-in 

Plaintiff Foster as the full and complete scope of the class. 

4. On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff Wallen and Plaintiff Shakes filed a Statement of 

Claim pursuant to the Court’s August 21, 2010 Order Requiring Scheduling Report, Certificate of 

Interested Parties, and Statement of Claim and Response in FLSA Case. See ECF No. 5, 7. 

However, Plaintiff Wallen and Plaintiff Shakes filed an Amended Statement of Claim on June 16, 

2021, after their depositions were taken. See ECF No. 43. In the Amended Statement of Claim, 

Plaintiff Wallen claimed to be owed $31,425 in unpaid overtime compensation, based on an 

allegation of 20 unpaid overtime hours per week over an 83 week period, and Plaintiff Shakes 

claimed to be owed $8,163.75 in unpaid overtime compensation, based on an allegation of 15 

unpaid overtime hours per week over a 39 week period.1

 Id. 

1 In the original Statement of Claim, Plaintiff Wallen claimed to be owed $53,156.25 in unpaid overtime 

compensation and Plaintiff Shakes claimed to be owed $30,292.50 in unpaid overtime compensation. 

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2021 Page 2 of 6
3

5. On July 15, 2021, Defendants filed a Response to the Amended Statement of Claim, 

denying that Plaintiffs were owed any unpaid overtime compensation.2 See ECF No. 44. 

Defendants provided a detailed explanation in the Response for the basis of the denial. Id.

6. Opt-in Plaintiff Charles and Opt-in Plaintiff Foster did not file a statement of claim. 

However, in answers to interrogatories, Opt-in Plaintiff Charles claimed to be wed $19,528.38 in 

unpaid overtime compensation, based on an allegation of 30 unpaid overtime hours per week over 

a 26.7 week period, and Opt-in Plaintiff Foster claimed to be owed $29,951.25 in unpaid overtime 

compensation, based on an allegation of 17.5 unpaid overtime hours over a 22 week period, and 

24.5 unpaid overtime hours over a 27 week period. 

7. Defendants deny that Opt-in Plaintiff Charles and Opt-in Plaintiff Foster are owed 

any unpaid overtime compensation. Additionally, Opt-in Plaintiff Charles was only employed for 

19 weeks (from September 16, 2019 to January 25, 2020) and Opt-in Plaintiff Foster was only 

employed for 42 weeks (from July 3, 2019 to April 21, 2020). 

8. On August 10, 2021, the parties participated in mediation with mediator Marlene 

Quintana. Notwithstanding the parties’ disagreement over the merits of the allegations and the 

scope of any potential damages, the parties engaged in good faith settlement discussions in an 

attempt to see if the instant action could be resolved without further litigation. 

9. After discussion and negotiations, and with the helpful assistance of Ms. Quintana, 

the parties reached an agreement to resolve and settle the claims asserted by Plaintiff Wallen, 

Plaintiff Shakes, Opt-in Plaintiff Charles, and Opt-in Plaintiff Foster. Specifically, the parties 

subsequently prepared a separate Settlement Agreement and General Release (“Settlement 

Agreement”) for each plaintiff and opt-in plaintiff that memorializes the monetary and non2 Defendant filed a Response to the original Statement of Claim on October 19, 2020, which also denied 

that any overtime compensation was owed. See ECF No. 14.

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2021 Page 3 of 6
4

monetary terms and conditions of the settlement. The Settlement Agreements were fully executed 

by the parties as of August 15, 2021. 

10. In accordance with the applicable requirements for settling an FLSA claim, the 

parties hereby seek the Court’s approval of the settlements that they have entered into to resolve 

the instant action. The parties further stipulate to the dismissal of the instant action in its entirety, 

with prejudice, after the Court has reviewed and approved the settlement agreements. 

II. ARGUMENT

Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), claims for overtime and minimum 

wage compensation arising under the FLSA may only be settled or compromised with the approval 

of the district court or the Secretary of Labor. See Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 

(1945); D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108 (1946); see also Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. 

United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) (claims for back wages arising under the FLSA may 

be settled or compromised only with the approval of the Court or the Secretary of Labor). To 

approve the settlement, the Court should determine that the compromise is a fair and reasonable 

resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions. Id.

As discussed above, the parties dispute whether any liability exists in the instant action. 

Nonetheless, the parties have agreed to settle all of the claims in this dispute and have executed a 

separate Settlement Agreement for each plaintiff and opt-in plaintiff. The parties agree that the 

settlement terms they reached represent a fair and equitable resolution of their dispute. Plaintiff 

Wallen, Plaintiff Shakes, Opt-in Plaintiff Charles, and Opt-in Plaintiff Foster, are each receiving a 

reasonable and satisfactory recovery of an agreed upon sum, plus payment of an agreed upon 

amount of attorneys’ fees and costs, which were negotiated separately. The terms of the Settlement 

Agreements are contingent upon approval by the Court. Thus, the parties respectfully request that 

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2021 Page 4 of 6
5

the Court approve their settlements and issue an Order dismissing this action with prejudice, but 

retaining jurisdiction, as necessary, to enforce the Settlement Agreements entered into by the 

parties.

The parties have agreed to keep the specific terms and conditions of the Settlement 

Agreements confidential. To that end, the parties respectfully request approval to present the 

Settlement Agreements to the Court, in their written and executed form, for an in camera review, 

in order to protect the confidential nature of the agreements. By allowing an in camera review, 

the Court can consider the agreements and still protect the confidentiality that the parties bargained 

for. Alternatively, if the Court prefers, the parties can present the Settlement Agreements for the 

Court to review and discuss with the parties at a fairness hearing, or they can file a redacted version 

of the Settlement Agreements (and provide the Court with an unredacted version for an in camera 

review), or they can proceed in any other manner the Court allows that protects the confidential 

nature of the agreement. 

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court review the Settlement 

Agreements in a manner that protects their confidential nature, and then enter an Order approving 

the terms of the settlement of the instant action, and dismissing this action in its entirety, with 

prejudice, but retaining jurisdiction, as necessary, to enforce the Settlement Agreements entered 

into by the parties.

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2021 Page 5 of 6
6

DATED this 19th day of August 2021

Respectfully submitted,

Lubell Rosen, LLC Littler Mendelson, P.C.

200 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 900 Wells Fargo Center

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700

Tel: (954) 880-9500 Miami, Florida 33131-1804

Fax: (954) 755-2293 Tel: (305) 400-7500

Fax: (305) 603-2552

/s/ Joshua H. Sheskin /s/ Aaron Reed

Joshua H. Sheskin Aaron Reed

Florida Bar No. 93028 Florida Bar No. 0557153

E-mail: jhs@lubellrosen.com E-mail: areed@littler.com

Amber L. Ruocco Stella S. Chu

Florida Bar No. 121669 Florida Bar No. 60519

E-mail: alr@lubellrosen.com E-mail: sschu@littler.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Defendants

4823-5459-4550.1

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2021 Page 6 of 6