UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-22702-CIV-ALTONAGA/GOODMAN

NORMA N. TELLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CREST HOTEL GROUP LLC,

d/b/a/ CREST HOTEL SUITES,

Defendant,

____________________________________/ 

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER APPROVING 

SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, NORMA N. TELLO, (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), and Defendant, CREST HOTEL 

GROUP LLC, d/b/a CREST HOTEL SUITES (hereinafter, “Defendant”), 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 wages under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. Section 210 et. seq. Defendant has denied any and all liability 

with regards to Plaintiff’s claims, including the amount of any alleged unpaid overtime wages 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22702-CMA Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2020 Page 1 of 9
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 Defendant. The proposed 

settlement arises out of an action brought by Plaintiff against her alleged former employer, which 

was adversarial in nature.

The Parties agree that the instant action involves disputed issues. Although Defendant 

disputes its liability for the allegedly owed overtime wage payments to Plaintiff, it has ultimately 

agreed to settle the Plaintiff’s claims by making a payment that Defendant contends encompass a 

payment in full of Plaintiff’s claims.

Case 1:20-cv-22702-CMA Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2020 Page 2 of 9
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”).

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 

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-22702-CMA Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2020 Page 3 of 9
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 wages under the 

FLSA. 

2. On or about July 13

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

the parties were able to reach an agreement to settle the dispute between them and thus 

resolve all of Plaintiff’s claims, including those for attorney’s fees and costs.

3. Plaintiff and Defendant 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 Defendant. 

Specifically, based upon their respective estimates of Plaintiff’s underlying claims and her

claims for attorney’s fees and costs, the parties negotiated the settlement amount herein. 

4. In settlement, Plaintiff NORMA N. TELLO will be paid a total of $5,000.00 as full relief 

and compensation of any alleged unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and any 

other damages claimed against Defendant under the FLSA. From the total amount of 

Case 1:20-cv-22702-CMA Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2020 Page 4 of 9
$5,000.00, $2,500.00 shall be allocated in satisfaction of Plaintiff’s claims for “wages”, 

and $2,500.00 shall be allocated in satisfaction of Plaintiff’s claims for “liquidated 

damages”. Plaintiff agrees 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 genuinely dispute 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 she allegedly worked, including overtime; whether or not Plaintiff was in fact 

properly compensated for meal periods she allegedly did not take; and whether or not any 

purported violations, if any, were willful – thus making the applicable statute of limitations 

2 years rather than 3. Additionally, and of greater significance, is the fact that upon careful 

review of Plaintiff’s time records, Plaintiff’s claims were substantially reduced, prompting 

Plaintiff to amend her Statement of Claim [D.E.# 13] to reflect her alleged claims more 

accurately. Consequentially, Plaintiff’s recovery at trial could have been minimal, or in a 

worst case scenario, she could have been barred from any recovery with regards to her

claims for unpaid wages should Defendant had prevailed on the merits or its defenses.

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

Plaintiff will be receiving more than full unliquidated compensation for her unpaid 

overtime claims2; Plaintiff’s claims are highly disputed; the issues of material fact which 

are in dispute; and the fact that Plaintiff could be barred from recovery in this matter should 

2

In her Amended Statement of Claim, Plaintiff alleges $3,712.50 in unpaid overtime wages (unliquidated). Under 

the parties’ settlement agreement, Plaintiff will be receiving $5,000.00 for her alleged unpaid overtime claims 

(unliquidated). Thus, Plaintiff will be receiving more than full unliquidated compensation.

Case 1:20-cv-22702-CMA Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2020 Page 5 of 9
she not be able to establish her 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 Defendant denies any liability in this action.

7. Separate and apart, Plaintiff’s counsel shall receive $4,500.00 in attorney’s fees and 

$500.00 in costs, for a total of $5,000.00, 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. Plaintiff’s 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. 

See Abreu v. Free Flow Constr., Inc., Case No. 18-20244, 2018 WL 6492904, at *1 (S.D. 

Fla. Oct. 30, 2018) (adopting Report and Recommendation recommending that Zandro E. 

Palma, Esq.'s requested rate of $375 was reasonable); see also Ruiz, et. Al. v. Global Fish 

Handlers, Corp., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-25205-JEM, [D.E.#65], (S.D. Fla. April 4, 2019) 

(“This Court has previously awarded Mr. Palma attorney's fees at a rate of $375 per hour. 

The Court finds that $375 is a reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Palma.”) Plaintiff’s counsel 

has expended over 14 hours on this matter to date, which includes time spent negotiating 

settlement, conducting informal discovery, extensive review of employment time records, 

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

to Plaintiff. Consequentially, Plaintiff’s recovery was not adversely affected by the amount 

Case 1:20-cv-22702-CMA Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2020 Page 6 of 9
of fees and costs to be paid to her 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. Also attached for this Honorable Court’s consideration, are Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing 

records, attached hereto as Exhibit B.

12. Having agreed to the terms of the settlement reached, Plaintiff and Defendant respectfully 

request that this Honorable Court approve the settlement between the parties.

13. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that this Honorable 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.

14. 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 20th day of August 2020.

Case 1:20-cv-22702-CMA Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2020 Page 7 of 9
Respectfully submitted,

/s/Zandro E. Palma_________ /s/Jose Pena_________

Zandro E. Palma, Esq. Jose Pena, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 0024031 Florida Bar No. 74818

ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. DCODED LAW P.A.

9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 6834 Lakeside Cir S

Miami, Florida 33156 Davie, FL 33314

Telephone No.: (305) 446-1500 Telephone: (954) 860-7980

Facsimile No.: (305) 446-1502

zep@ThePalmaLawGroup.com Email: iplaw@outlook.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant

Case 1:20-cv-22702-CMA Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2020 Page 8 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-22702-CIV-ALTONAGA/GOODMAN

NORMA N. TELLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CREST HOTEL GROUP LLC,

d/b/a/ CREST HOTEL SUITES,

Defendant,

____________________________________/ 

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 

August, 2020.

_______________________________

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to:

All Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22702-CMA Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2020 Page 9 of 9