IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CONNIE LEVASSUER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SHADES INLET INC.,

Defendant.

 

Case No.: 3:20-CV-5552-RV-HTC 

JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AND 

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Connie Levassuer (“Levassuer”), and Defendant Shades Inlet, Inc.

(“Shades”) (collectively “the Parties”), in connection with the Parties’ settlement in 

this case, hereby jointly request that this Court approve their settlement and dismiss 

this matter with prejudice.

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Therefore, the 

Parties’ settlement must be approved by this Court, and said approval must be 

entered as a stipulated final judgment. See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 

679 F. 2d. 1350 (11th Cir. 1982). The Parties jointly agree and propose to this Court 

that their Settlement Agreement is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide 

dispute over FLSA provisions.” Id. at 1355. In support thereof, the Parties show the 

Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 14
2

following:

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On April 8, 2020, Levassuer filed her Complaint alleging unlawful retaliation 

and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). [DE 1]1

. 

Levassuer’s claims arose from her allegations that she was not properly compensated 

the correct regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty (40) per work 

week. Shades filed a timely Answer to the Complaint, asserting Affirmative 

Defenses and denying all allegations of wrongdoing or liability on June 22, 2020. 

[DE 5]. Subsequent to Shades’ Answer, the Parties engaged in formal and informal 

discovery. Thereafter, the Parties participated in mediation on February 2, 2021,

where the Parties reached a settlement of all of Levassuer’s claims. A copy of the 

Parties’ Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”2

Importantly, Levassuer is receiving significant consideration for her overtime 

claims, as she is paid full relief of $13,900.00, representing full relief for her claims, 

comprised of overtime wages and liquidated damages and $23,100.00 in attorneys’ 

fees. Thus, had Levassuer gone to trial, she could not have received more money. 

The Parties jointly agree that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are appropriate 

1 Levassuer’s Complaint was originally filed in Walton County Circuit Court. Shades removed the action to the 

Northern District of Florida and Levassuer’s Complaint is attached as Exhibit “A” to the Notice of Removal. [DE 1].

2 The Parties notify thisCourtthey entered into a separate written general release settlement agreement, which provided 

separate compensation to Plaintiff only. Plaintiff’s Counsel did not receive any attorneys’ fees and/or costs from the 

separate written settlement agreement.

Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 2 of 14
3

in light of all 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. 

III. CITATION TO AUTHORITY

A. FLSA Settlements Require Court Approval

The Northern District of Florida has followed Lynn’s Food, finding that courts 

must determine whether a compromise of an FLSA claim for wages represents a 

“fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Parker 

v. Short Stop Pantry, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228209, *1 (N.D. Fla. 2018).

Pursuant to Lynn’s Food there are only two ways in which back pay wage 

claims under the FLSA can be settled or compromised by employees; (1) under 

Section 216(c), the Secretary of Labor is authorized to supervise payment to unpaid 

wages owed to them; or (2) suits brought directly by employees against their 

employer under Section 216(b) to recover back pay for FLSA violations. Lynn’s 

Food at 1352-1353. In the instant action, the circumstances justify the Court’s 

approval of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement to resolve and release Plaintiff

Connie Levassuer’s FLSA claims against Defendant Shades Inlet, Inc.

The proposed Settlement Agreement arises from an adversarial action 

initiated by Levassuer against Shades as Levassuer’s former employer. Levassuer 

Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 3 of 14
4

contends that she was not paid the correct hourly rate for every hour worked over 

forty (40) per week under the FLSA. Shades has denied that Levassuer is owed 

unpaid wages, liquidated damages, or any other relief for part or all the relevant 

periods of time subject to this litigation. As a result, this case involves a bona fide 

dispute as to whether and to what extent Levassuer is owed any relief under the 

FLSA. Notwithstanding, Shades has agreed to pay Levassuer $13,100.00 in claimed 

overtime wages and liquidated damages that she contends is owed to her. The Parties 

through their attorneys, voluntarily agreed to the terms of the Settlement Agreement 

during mediation which was conducted in good faith. All parties were counseled and 

represented by their respective attorneys throughout the litigation and the settlement 

process.

B. The Settlement Agreement Should be Approved As It Is A Fair And 

Reasonable Compromise Of Disputed FLSA Claims

When an employee brings a private action for back wages under the FLSA, 

and presents to the district court a proposed settlement, the district court may enter 

a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness. Lynn’s Food at 

1354. 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 a settlement is fair and reasonable, the Court should 

consider the following factors: (1) the existence of fraud or collusion behind the 

Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 4 of 14
5

settlement; (2) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the 

stage of proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the probability of 

plaintiffs’ success on the merits; (5) the range of possible recovery; and (6) the 

opinions of counsel. Hamilton v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10287, *4

(M.D. Fla. 2007).

The external factors include whether the compromise otherwise frustrates the

implementation of the FLSA, requiring the court to consider matters such as whether

other employees are similarly situated or whether either the employer or the industry

has a history of noncompliance. Dees v. Hydrary, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1227, 1243-44

(M.D. Fla. 2010). Additionally, in deciding the reasonableness of a compromise, the

stage of the proceedings and amount of discovery completed must be considered, as

well as the complexity of the claim, probable success on the claim, the range of

possible recovery, and the opinions of counsel. See id. at 1241. Courts should be

mindful of the strong presumption in favor of finding a settlement fair. Hamilton at

*4. As shown below, the factors strongly favor the Court approving the Parties’

Settlement Agreement in this action.

C. The Internal Factors Demonstrate That The Settlement Agreement

Is Fair And Reasonable And Should Be Approved

1. There Is No Collusion Behind The Settlement

As the pleadings demonstrate, this was a disputed litigation which was

resolved only after the Parties exchanged detailed information concerning the pay

Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 5 of 14
6

rates and work hours of Levassuer. This discovery narrowed the range of possible

recovery amounts for Levassuer. Additionally, the settlement was negotiated over

several months, with the Parties exchanging multiple offers and counteroffers as well

as frank discussion among counsel regarding the strengths and weaknesses of each

party’s position before settlement was ultimately agreed upon at mediation. It is

therefore clear that there is no collusion between counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant.

This factor is strongly in favor of approving the Parties’ Settlement Agreement. The 

attorney’s fees and costs that the Parties agreed upon for Plaintiff’s counsel, were 

negotiated separately from and without regard to the settlement sums being paid to 

Plaintiff. See Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., 715 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1228 (M.D. Fla. 

2009).

2. The Complexity, Expense, And Likely Duration Of The Litigation

Favor Approving The Settlement Agreement

Although this action was not legally complex, it did require substantial

development of facts in order for the Parties to reach settlement. The Parties and

their counsel prudently attempted to devote their resources toward settlement, rather

than continued litigation. Had the Parties been unable to reach a settlement,

numerous depositions would have been taken, and significant delay in resolution of

the dispute would ensue. Shades asserted that Levassuer was properly compensated

and therefore not entitled overtime compensation. Notwithstanding, Shades agreed

to pay the amount specified in the Settlement Agreement as full compensation which

Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 6 of 14
7

Levassuer contends she is owed. If the Parties’ Settlement Agreement is not

approved, many issues remain to be litigated with no accompanying commensurate

benefit to Levassuer. Additionally, since this case does not present any novel issues

of law, approving the Parties’ Settlement Agreement will not frustrate the purposes

of the FLSA.

The expense and likely duration of the litigation also support approving the

Settlement Agreement as this case is being aggressively litigated by both Parties’

counsel and will otherwise not be resolved quickly.

3. The Stage Of The Proceedings And The Amount Of Discovery

Completed Support Approving The Settlement Agreement

Shades has provided Levassuer’s work and pay records in discovery, which

helped Levassuer, and her counsel establish the amount she claimed to be owed.

After arms-length negotiations and mediation, the Parties agreed on the terms of the

Settlement Agreement which Levassuer agrees is the full amount she is owed. As

such, Levassuer had sufficient information at the time the case was conditionally

settled to determine a reasonably accurate range of potential damages and recovery.

This factor weighs in favor of approving the Parties’ Settlement Agreement.

4. The Probability of Plaintiff’s Success and The Range Of Recovery

Support Approving the Proposed Settlement Agreement

The Parties strongly disagree as to the merits of this case. Levassuer and her

counsel believe that she would prevail on summary judgment and Shades believes it

Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 7 of 14
8

would prevail on summary judgment. As the Settlement Agreement provides for a

full recovery of Levassuer’s alleged damages, it should be approved as fair.

5. The Opinions of Counsel Support Approval Of The Settlement

Agreement

At all times material hereto, Levassuer and Shades have been represented by 

counsel experienced in the litigation of FLSA claims and the settlement amount and 

the final Settlement Agreement was the subject of arms-length negotiations and 

mediation. After discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of each Parties’ 

case, the Parties along with their Counsel are of the opinion that the Settlement 

Agreement is fair and reasonable and should be approved by this Court.

D. The “External Factors” Support Approving The Settlement 

Agreement

The external factors to examine when considering that fairness of a proposed 

FLSA settlement address whether the compromise frustrates the purposes of the 

FLSA, requiring the court to consider matters such as whether other employees are

similarly situated or whether either the employer or the industry has a history of

noncompliance. Dees at 1243-44.

These factors also favor approval of the Settlement Agreement. The

Settlement Agreement does not frustrate the purposes of the FLSA. The Settlement

Agreement does not affect the rights of anyone but Levassuer and her counsel as

well as Shades and its counsel. As these external factors support approval of the

Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 8 of 14
9

Settlement Agreement, the Parties respectfully request that this Court approve it.

The Parties therefore respectfully submit that the Settlement Agreement is 

consistent with the intent and purpose of the FLSA and the requirements of Lynn’s 

Food, as all of the relevant internal and external factors support the approval of the 

Settlement Agreement in this matter.

Finally, the Parties jointly advise the Court that the Agreements being 

submitted include 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.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the Parties jointly believe the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable and adequate. Accordingly, the Parties 

respectfully request that the Court grant this Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA 

Settlement and enter a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice in this action.

[DATE AND SIGNATURE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 9 of 14
10

Respectfully submitted this 4th day of May 2021.

/s/*Noah E. Storch /s/Jennifer K. Sniadecki 

Noah E. Storch Mark L. Bonfanti 

Florida Bar No. 0085476 Florida Bar. No. 0010185

Alexander Harne Jennifer K. Sniadecki 

Florida Bar No. Florida Bar No. 1010134

Richard Celler Legal P. A. Hall, Gilligan, Roberts &

10368 W. State Road 84 Ste 103 Shanlever LLP

Davie, FL 33324 4987 E. Co. Hwy 30A

Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Seagrove Beach, Florida 32459

Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 Telephone: (850) 213-0604

*With Express Permission Facsimile: (404) 537-5555

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 10 of 14
EXHIBIT “A”

Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 11 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 12 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 13 of 14
4/20/21

Case 3:20-cv-05552-RV-HTC Document 15 Filed 05/04/21 Page 14 of 14