UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:20-CIV-81308-REINHART

ADAM SELIGSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAPID PLUMBING & MECHNICAL, INC.,

ROBERT PUGLIESE, JR., individually, and

JEANNIE LEHMBECK, individually,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 

JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff, ADAM SELIGSON, and Defendants, RAPID PLUMBING & MECHNICAL, 

INC., ROBERT PUGLIESE, JR., and JEANNIE LEHMBECK (collectively the “Parties”), by and 

through their undersigned counsel, jointly notify the Court that the Parties have resolved the claims 

in this matter and hereby stipulate to the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of this action in its 

entirety pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), subject to the Court’s review and approval of the 

settlement agreement. 

The Parties jointly move the Court for entry of an Order approving the Parties’ settlement 

agreement and for dismissal of this action, with prejudice. To facilitate the Court’s review of the 

Parties’ settlement agreement (the “Agreement”), a copy of the executed Agreement has been 

provided for the Court’s in camera review. 

I. Background

Plaintiff asserts claims in this action for alleged unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et. seq. (“FLSA”). 

Case 9:20-cv-81308-BER Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2020 Page 1 of 7
CASE NO. 9:20-CIV-81308-REINHART

2

Defendants deny Plaintiff’s claims asserting, inter alia, that Defendants paid Plaintiff all 

compensation to which he was entitled. 

From the onset of this litigation, the Parties laid out their respective positions on the facts 

and law. Ultimately, the Parties were able to negotiate and agree on a settlement of this action 

under the terms set out in the Settlement Agreement. 

II. Legal Principles

Under well-established law, there are two ways in which claims under the FLSA can be 

settled and released by employees. First, 216(c) of the FLSA allows employees to settle and waive 

their claims under the FLSA if the payment of unpaid wages by the employer to the employees 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 (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 court enters a judgment approving the fairness of the settlement. Id.; see also 

Schulte, Inc. v Gandi, 328 U.S. 108 (1946); Jarrad v. Southeastern Shipbuilding Corp., 163 F.2d 

960, 961 (5th Cir. 1947). In addressing the circumstances justifying court approval of an FLSA 

settlement in the litigation context, the Eleventh Circuit has explained:

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 about 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.

Case 9:20-cv-81308-BER Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2020 Page 2 of 7
CASE NO. 9:20-CIV-81308-REINHART

3

Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354.

The settlement of the instant action involves just such a situation in which the Court may 

approve the Parties’ settlement to resolve and release Plaintiff’s FLSA claims. The proposed 

settlement arises out of an action brought by the Plaintiff against his former employer, which is 

adversarial in nature. See Martin v. Spring Break ‘83 Prods., LLC, 688 F.3d 247 (5th Cir. 2012) 

(Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. fairness concerns not implicated regarding settlement that occurred 

within the context of a lawsuit where a plaintiff-employee is represented by counsel), followed by

Smith v. Tri-City Transmission Serv., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119428 (D. Ariz. Aug. 23, 2012). 

During the litigation and settlement of this action, Plaintiff was and is represented by experienced 

counsel. 

The Parties’ settlement of the unpaid overtime wage claim is the result of a bona fide 

compromise between them on a variety of disputes of law and fact, including without limitation:

(a) whether Plaintiff was properly compensated for any overtime work he performed; (b) whether 

Defendants maintained proper records of Plaintiff’s hours worked; and (c) whether Defendants’

actions were non-willful and/or taken in good faith with reasonable grounds for Defendants’

actions.

The following factors are typically considered by the Court in determining the 

reasonableness of the agreement:

(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.

Case 9:20-cv-81308-BER Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2020 Page 3 of 7
CASE NO. 9:20-CIV-81308-REINHART

4

Hamilton v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 6:05-CV-592-ORL-22JGG, 2007 WL 328792 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2007) 

report and recommendation adopted, 6:05-CV-592-ORL-22JGG, 2007 WL 219981 (M.D. Fla. 

Jan. 26, 2007).

As to the first factor, there is no fraud or collusion behind the settlement. Plaintiff, 

represented by counsel, filed a claim for unpaid overtime wages against Defendants, also 

represented by counsel. Both Parties are represented by counsel experienced in FLSA matters and 

routinely litigate labor and employment matters. The Parties have decided to resolve the claim 

only due to the disputed issues of facts and inherent risks of litigation. Infra.

As to the second factor, should the case proceed to trial, the Parties would be required to 

submit to depositions, as well as undertake the deposition of third-party witnesses in the case. The 

Parties would have had to expend significant time and resources in preparation for trial, as well as 

attend a two to three-day trial. Additionally, there is the possibility that the non-prevailing party 

may appeal the verdict, albeit the statistical possibility of an appeal cannot be presently 

ascertained. The expense of litigation to the Defendants is far greater than the amount of the 

settlement. 

As to the third factor, the litigation is currently in the discovery phase. The Parties intended 

to propound discovery, to depose the other’s clients and numerous witnesses. The Parties have 

also discussed the disputed issues, which spurred settlement.

As to the fourth factor, there are several disputed issues. The Parties dispute (a) whether 

Plaintiff was properly compensated for any overtime work he performed; (b) whether Defendants 

maintained proper records of Plaintiff’s hours worked, and (c) whether Defendants’ actions were 

non-willful and taken in good faith. Thus, there is a bona fide dispute as to whether Plaintiff was 

properly paid for any overtime work he performed.

Case 9:20-cv-81308-BER Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2020 Page 4 of 7
CASE NO. 9:20-CIV-81308-REINHART

5

Additionally, Plaintiff contend the alleged FLSA violations lacked good faith and 

liquidated damages should be imposed. Defendants allege they acted in good faith and that their 

actions or omissions were based on reasonable grounds for believing that they were not a violating 

the FLSA. Assuming, arguendo, Defendants’ position is correct, Plaintiff would be precluded 

from recovering liquidated damages. Thus, Plaintiff’s recovery, if any, could be limited to the 

unliquidated wage portion which, in turn, severely limits their damages.

As to the fifth factor, should Defendants have prevailed based on any of their defenses, 

Plaintiff potentially may have recovered far less than what is claimed in the Complaint, not 

recovered anything, or may have owed a cost judgment to the Defendants. Should Plaintiff prevail, 

the Defendants may potentially fail on all defenses and be indebted to the Plaintiff for a Judgment 

for wages, for part or the entire of Plaintiff’s claim, as well as an award for liquidated damages, 

and attorneys’ fees and costs. Consequently, the Parties recognize the inherent uncertainty in 

proceeding with this action, the preoccupation of litigation, the investiture of additional time to 

continue to litigate this case, the additional expenditure of fees and costs that will accrue as this 

matter moves forward (especially to trial), the uncertainty of whether any money judgment would 

be collectable, and the possibility that such a judgment would be discharged in bankruptcy. In 

recognition of these concerns, the Parties have agreed to resolve this action. 

Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs were, at all times, negotiated separately from the 

amount claimed by Plaintiff for his underlying claims and are not a function of any percentage of 

recovery. As the Court explained in Bonetti v. Embarq Management Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

68075 at *15-16 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2009), where a “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 

Case 9:20-cv-81308-BER Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2020 Page 5 of 7
CASE NO. 9:20-CIV-81308-REINHART

6

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.” A 

detailed report containing every time and cost entry in this case will be provided for the Court’s in 

camera review.

The settlement negotiated and reached by the Parties reflects a reasonable compromise of 

the disputed issues. Plaintiff and his counsel discussed the viability of Plaintiff’s claims and 

formulated their own proposed settlement figures. The Parties then continued to engage in 

settlement discussions based upon their independent calculations.

The Parties, through their attorneys, voluntarily agreed to the terms of their settlement 

during negotiations. All Parties were counseled and represented by their respective attorneys 

through the litigation and settlement process. The Agreement has been signed by the Parties. 

III. Conclusion

The Parties jointly request that this Court approve the Parties’ settlement agreement and 

request that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice. 

Dated: September 25, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Brody M. Shulman

Brody M. Shulman, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 92044

PERERA BARNHART ALEMÁN

300 Sevilla Avenue

Suite 206

Coral Gables, FL 33134

E-mail: brody@pba-law.com

Tel.: (786) 485-5232

Attorneys for Plaintiff

s/ Lauren K. Goff

Lauren K. Goff, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1015854

E-mail: lauren.goff@jacksonlewis.com 

Leslie Lagomasino Baum, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1007655

E-mail: leslie.baum@jacksonlewis.com 

JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500

2 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel.: (305) 577-7600 

Fax: (305) 373-4466

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 9:20-cv-81308-BER Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2020 Page 6 of 7
CASE NO. 9:20-CIV-81308-REINHART

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 25th day of September 2020, a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing was served by CM/ECF, on all counsel or parties of record on the Service List below.

s/ Leslie Lagomasino Baum

Leslie Lagomasino Baum, Esq. 

SERVICE LIST

Brody M. Shulman, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 92044

PERERA BARNHART ALEMÁN

300 Sevilla Avenue

Suite 206

Coral Gables, FL 33134

E-mail: brody@pba-law.com

Tel.: (786) 485-5232

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Lauren K. Goff, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1015854

E-mail: lauren.goff@jacksonlewis.com 

Leslie Lagomasino Baum, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1007655

E-mail: leslie.baum@jacksonlewis.com 

JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500

2 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel.: (305) 577-7600 

Fax: (305) 373-4466

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 9:20-cv-81308-BER Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2020 Page 7 of 7