PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCEPTED 

FED. R. CIV. P. 68 OFFERS OF JUDGMENT

PAGE 1 OF 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

SHAKEENA RICE, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated; 

TENETIA TURNER, an individual; 

ASHLEY JORDAN, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MR. T’S, INC., a Florida corporation, 

formerly dba LOOKERS LOUNGE, 

aka CHEETAH; TERRY L. THOMAS, 

an individual; CLIFFORD G. 

MCGHEE, an individual; and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

/

Case No. 3:20-cv-05695-TKWEMT

COLLECTIVE ACTION

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCEPTED 

FED. R. CIV. P. 68 OFFERS OF JUDGMENT

TO THIS HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR 

ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiffs Shakeena Rice, Tenetia Turner, and 

Ashley Jordan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through her counsel of record, will 

and hereby move this Court for an order directing the Clerk to enter judgment 

pursuant to the accepted Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 Offers of Judgment [Dkts. 25-28]. 

This Motion is based upon this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities, the declaration and exhibits thereto, the pleadings, and all 

Case 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 1 of 10
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCEPTED 

FED. R. CIV. P. 68 OFFERS OF JUDGMENT

PAGE 2 OF 9

other papers on file in this action, and upon such other evidence and arguments as 

may be presented at the hearing on this matter.

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)

Plaintiffs’ counsel certifies that prior to the filing of the instant motion, all 

parties, through counsel, met and conferred pertaining to the subject matter of the 

instant motion on April 30, 2021. At the time of the parties’ conference Defendants 

Mr. T’s, Inc., formerly dba Lookers Lounge, aka Cheetah, Terry L. Thomas, 

Clifford G. McGehee (collectively, “Defendants”) do not oppose this Motion.

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(F) –

WORD LIMIT

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(F), Plaintiffs’ counsel certifies that the 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of this Motion complies with the 

Northern District of Florida’s 8,000 word limit and consists of 1,361 words.

Respectfully submitted on April 30, 2021,

/s/ Jesenia A. Martinez

Jesenia A. Martinez

California Bar No. 316969

KRISTENSEN LLP

12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200

Los Angeles, California 90066

Telephone: (310) 507-7924

Fax: (310) 507-7906

jesenia@kristensenlaw.com

(Pro Hac Vice)

Raymond R. Dieppa

Florida Bar No. 27690

FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC

12250 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 405

North Miami, Florida 33181

Case 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 2 of 10
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCEPTED 

FED. R. CIV. P. 68 OFFERS OF JUDGMENT

PAGE 3 OF 9

Telephone: (305) 901-2209

ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 3 of 10
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCEPTED 

FED. R. CIV. P. 68 OFFERS OF JUDGMENT

PAGE 4 OF 9

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Shakeena Rice (“Rice”), Tenetia Turner (“Turner”), and Ashley 

Jordan (“Jordan”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully move this Court for an 

order directing the Clerk to enter judgment pursuant to the accepted Fed. R. Civ. P. 

68 Offers of Judgment [Dkts. 25-28] for the following reasons: (1) accepted Rule 

68 Offers of Judgment are acceptable methods of resolving FLSA; and (2) no 

actual case or controversy exists since Plaintiffs accepted Defendants’ Rule 68 

Offers, thus the Court lacks jurisdiction to address this matter other than to direct 

that judgments be entered.

II. RELEVANT FACTS

Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers Lookers Lounge. The singular 

establishment is an exotic dance club which goes by two names, Lookers Lounge 

and Cheetah, and is owned and operated by defendants Mr. T’s, Inc., formerly dba 

Lookers Lounge, aka Cheetah, Terry L. Thomas, Clifford G. McGehee 

(collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiffs were all employed by Defendants in the past three years. Rice 

worked at Lookers Lounge from approximately 2010 to 2018. Jordan worked at 

Lookers Lounge from approximately September 2018 to July 2019. Finally, Turner 

worked at Lookers Lounge from approximately 2018 to 2019. 

On July 29, 2020, Rice brought this action seeking to recover wages owed to 

her and other dancers who have been classified as independent contractors at 

Lookers Lounge under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, 

et seq. See Dkt. 1. On August 31, 2020, Jordan and Turner filed their notices of 

consent to join as opt-in Plaintiffs. See Dkt. 4.

Case 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 4 of 10
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCEPTED 

FED. R. CIV. P. 68 OFFERS OF JUDGMENT

PAGE 5 OF 9

On April 16, 2021, Defendants served Rule 68 Offers to Plaintiffs, which 

Plaintiffs timely accepted. See Dkts. 25-27. 

On April 19, 2021, Plaintiffs lodged proposed judgments in accordance with 

the accepted Rule 68 Offers of Judgment. See Dkt. 28.

III. ARGUMENT

Rule 68 Offers are valid, appropriate, and acceptable methods of resolving 

FLSA matters, such that when accepted Rule 68 Offers are made, no actual case or 

controversy exists from which the Court could have jurisdiction to continue 

adjudicating the matter.

A. Rule 68 Offers Are an Acceptable Method of Resolving FLSA 

Actions

Rule 68(a) provides: 

At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party 

defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party 

an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the 

costs then accrued. If, within 14 days after being served, 

the opposing party serves written notice accepting the 

offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of 

acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then 

enter judgment.

Courts acknowledge that Rule 68 offers of judgment are acceptable methods 

of “resolving a case brought pursuant to the FLSA.” Mackenzie v. Kindred Hosps. 

E., L.L.C., 276 F.Supp.2d 1211, 1216 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (citing Arencibia v. Miami 

Shoes, Inc., 113 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 1997)); see also Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki 

Restaurant, Inc., 944 F.3d 395, 414 (2nd Cir. 2019) (holding that “judicial 

approval is not required of Rule 68(a) offers of judgment settling FLSA claims.”); 

Park v. Am. Servs. of Cent. Fla., Inc., No. 6:06-cv-882-Orl-22JGG, 2007 WL 

430651, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2007) (“Where the employer offers full the 

Case 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 5 of 10
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCEPTED 

FED. R. CIV. P. 68 OFFERS OF JUDGMENT

PAGE 6 OF 9

plaintiff full compensation on his FLSA claim, no compromise is involved and 

judicial approval is not required.”). 

Plaintiffs have not compromised their FLSA claims. There is no “side deal.” 

The terms of the Offers have been provided to the Court on April 16, 2021 and 

they provide for full compensation of Plaintiffs’ claims as can be seen from the 

Offers of Judgment. Each would be subject to the statute of limitations of two 

years since the time they filed or joined this action.1

Rice worked at Lookers Lounge from approximately 2010 to 2018. Without 

a finding of willfulness, Rice would only be entitled to capture the time from two 

years prior to the date she filed this action, which would be July 29, 2018. Thus, 

Rice could only claim wages for little over four months. Rice does not have 

records of all dates and hours she worked at the club, but presuming she worked 40 

hours per week for $7.25 federal minimum wage and taking into account liquidated 

damages, Rice’s claims would amount to a little over $12,760. Defendants offered 

$30,000, which is a higher amount than Rice claims. 

Turner worked at Lookers Lounge from approximately 2018 to 2019. Turner 

would only be entitled to capture the time from two years prior to the date she 

joined this action, which would be August 31, 2018. Turner could only claim 

wages for sixteen months. Turner does not have records of all dates and hours she 

worked at the club, but presuming she worked 40 hours per week for $7.25 federal 

minimum wage and taking into account liquidated damages, Turner’s claims would 

amount to approximately $40,000. Defendants offered $55,000, which is a higher 

amount than Turner claims.

1 A 3-year statute of limitations would apply only if there was a finding of 

willfulness in Defendants’ violations of the FLSA. See McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe 

Co., 486 U.S. 128, 129 (1988) (citing 29 U.S.C § 255(a)). 

Case 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 6 of 10
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCEPTED 

FED. R. CIV. P. 68 OFFERS OF JUDGMENT

PAGE 7 OF 9

Jordan worked at Lookers Lounge from approximately September 2018 to 

July 2019. Jordan would only be entitled to capture the time from two years prior 

to the date she joined this action, which would be August 31, 2018. Jordan could 

only claim wages for eleven months. Jordan does not have records of all dates and 

hours she worked at the club, but presuming she worked 40 hours per week for 

$7.25 federal minimum wage and taking into account liquidated damages, Jordan’s 

claims would amount to approximately $27,840. Defendants offered $75,000, 

which is a higher amount than Rice claims.

As such, the Offers here fully compensate Plaintiffs for their claims, 

demonstrating that Plaintiffs have not “compromised” their FLSA claims. See 

Vogel v. Am. Kiosk Mgmt, 371 F.Supp.2d 122, 128 (D.Conn. 2005) (“Furthermore, 

if the offer of judgment sufficiently covers all damages claimed by the named 

plaintiff, plus costs and attorney’s fees, it may moot the plaintiff’s action, even if 

the plaintiff/offeree fails to accept the offer.). As can be seen, the Offers are not 

predicated on any waiver or release of Plaintiffs’ rights, but instead provide full 

and complete relief for them. Because the Offers provided complete relief for 

Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs accepted them. If they had chosen not to, their claims 

might have been rendered moot and this matter dismissed. Obtaining these Offers 

fully compensates Plaintiffs for the damages they allege they have suffered as a 

result of Defendants’ conduct. Thus, the Court must enter judgments in accordance 

with the accepted Rule 68 Offers.

B. Since Plaintiffs Accepted Defendants’ Rule 68 Offers, No Actual 

Case or Controversy Exists

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “Article III, § 2 of the 

Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies,’ 

which restricts the authority of federal courts to resolving ‘the legal rights of 

Case 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 7 of 10
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCEPTED 

FED. R. CIV. P. 68 OFFERS OF JUDGMENT

PAGE 8 OF 9

litigants in actual controversies.’” Genesis, 569 U.S. at 71 (quoting Valley Forge 

Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 

454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). The Court must maintain subject matter jurisdiction at 

all times, “[a] corollary to this case-or-controversy requirement is that ‘an actual 

controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the 

complaint is filed.’” Genesis, 569 U.S. at 71 (quoting Arizonans for Official 

English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997)). 

In Genesis, the United States Supreme Court found that the employee’s 

individual and collective claims were moot as a result of a Rule 68 offer of 

judgment that offered complete relief, even though it was not accepted. Genesis, 

569 U.S. at 73-74. Here, there is no longer a justiciable claim as Plaintiffs have 

accepted Defendants’ Rule 68 Offers, which provide full and complete relief for 

their claims without a waiver or release. All that is left is for judgments to be 

entered in accordance with the accepted Rule 68 Offers to resolve these claims. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant 

this Motion and direct the Clerk to enter judgment per the accepted Rule 68 Offers 

of Judgment.

Respectfully submitted on April 30, 2021,

/s/ Jesenia A. Martinez

Jesenia A. Martinez

California Bar No. 316969

KRISTENSEN LLP

12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200

Los Angeles, California 90066

Telephone: (310) 507-7924

Fax: (310) 507-7906

jesenia@kristensenlaw.com

Case 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 8 of 10
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCEPTED 

FED. R. CIV. P. 68 OFFERS OF JUDGMENT

PAGE 9 OF 9

(Pro Hac Vice)

Raymond R. Dieppa

Florida Bar No. 27690

FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC

12250 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 405

North Miami, Florida 33181

Telephone: (305) 901-2209

ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 9 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on Friday, April 30, 2021, a true and correct copy of the 

attached PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ACCEPTED 

FED. R. CIV. P. 68 OFFERS OF JUDGMENT was served via CM/ECF on all 

participants of record, including the persons listed below, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 5.

Luke Lirot

Sean X. Colon

LUKE CHARLES LIROT, P.A

2240 Belleair Road, Suite 190

Clearwater, Florida 33764

luke2@lirotlaw.com

krista@lirotlaw.com

sean@lirotlaw.com

Attorneys for All Defendants

/s/ Jesenia A. Martinez

Jesenia A. Martinez

Case 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT Document 30 Filed 04/30/21 Page 10 of 10