1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23485-LENARD/LOUIS

IRAN SAEZ,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LOMAN DISTRIBUTORS, INC. AND MANUEL LOPEZ, 

Defendants.

_______________________/

JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT

AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, Iran Saez, and Defendants, Loman Distributors, Inc. and Manuel Lopez 

(“Defendants”), hereby file this Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice, 

and state as follows: 

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts claims against Defendants for unpaid overtime wages under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). [ECF No. 1.] The parties reached a settlement agreement 

with no admission of liability (the “Settlement Agreement”), a copy of which is being emailed to 

this Court as Exhibit “A”. The parties respectfully request the Court’s review and approval of the 

Settlement Agreement pursuant to Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 

1982). 

Pursuant to the parties’ Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff will receive $750.00 as alleged 

overtime wages, plus an equal amount of $750.00 as liquidated damages. Therefore, the Plaintiff 

will receive a total of $1,500.00. Plaintiff’s counsel will receive the total amount of $6,000.00.

Plaintiff, Mr. Saez, alleged that he worked over 40 hours during most workweeks, and was 

not compensated for that overtime. [ECF No. 1]. Specifically, Mr. Saez alleged that he regularly 

Case 1:22-cv-23485-JAL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2023 Page 1 of 7
2 of 7

worked through his lunch breaks, worked longer than his scheduled time of 8:30am to 5:00pm, 

and worked on some Saturdays. Id. at ¶19. Mr. Saez alleged that Defendants knew he worked this 

overtime and failed to compensate him for it. Importantly, Mr. Saez asserted the Defendants did 

not keep time records during the majority of the time he worked for them. 

The Defendants dispute that Mr. Saez was entitled to any overtime wages. The Defendants 

maintain that Mr. Saez is exempt from overtime due to his status as a truck loader under the Motor 

Carrier Exemption of the FLSA. Defendants acknowledge that they did not keep time records for 

the majority of the time that Mr. Saez worked, but assert that any time he worked beyond a 40-

hour workweek was de minimis. Furthermore, Mr. Saez was compensated with discretionary 

bonuses, which work to offset any overtime he may have been owed. 

The parties engaged in early productive conferrals on their relative positions, and attended 

a settlement conference in front of Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis. Following the settlement 

conference, the parties exchanged further documentation and continued negotiations. After a 

review of the records provided by the Defendants, the parties ultimately agreed prolonged litigation 

would be uncertain and costly, and resolved to settle the case for the amounts described above, 

which are fair and reasonable to Mr. Saez given the evidence that would be presented for a fact 

finder. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

FLSA claims may be settled, compromised, or released by an employee upon judicial 

approval of disputed claims on terms that are fair and reasonable: 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-23485-JAL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2023 Page 2 of 7
3 of 7

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, Inc. v. United States, 679 F. 2d 1350, 1353-54 (11th Cir. 1982).

In determining whether a settlement is “fair, adequate and reasonable and is not the 

product of collusion between the parties,” Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1236, 1330 (5th Cir. 1977), 

Courts are to consider the following factors

(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 the plaintiffs' success on the merits;

(5) the range of possible recovery; and

(6) the opinions of counsel.

Morgan v. Public Storage, 301 F.Supp.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2016).

(1) There Was No Fraud or Collusion.

In this case, there was no fraud or collusion, as both parties were represented by counsel 

experienced in FLSA claims.

(2) The Complexity, Expense, and Length of Litigation Support Early 

Resolution.

The complexity, expense, and length of litigation weigh heavily in favor of settlement in 

this case. The cost of protracted litigation, which would be required for both sides to pursue their 

claims and defenses and obtain a final judgment on the merits, would be exceedingly high and 

likely exceed any damages Plaintiff could hope to recover in this action. The proposed settlement 

minimizes such costs, preserving the Court’s and each parties’ resources.

(3) The Parties Resolved this Case at the Appropriate Stage.

Before resolving this case, the parties exchanged sufficient information that enabled them 

to consult with their counsel and make a decision about whether to continue litigating or to resolve 

this case. The parties exchanged time and pay records, which they independently analyzed. Based 

Case 1:22-cv-23485-JAL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2023 Page 3 of 7
4 of 7

on this analysis, and after attending a settlement conference the parties decided to resolve this 

matter. To this end, had the parties not resolved this case at this juncture, written discovery and 

depositions would have begun, followed by summary judgment briefing, as part of which Plaintiff 

faced the potential for lesser or no recovery had this case continued. Finally, based on the scope 

of Plaintiff’s alleged FLSA claims and the disputed legal and factual issues relating to those claims, 

taking into account the time, risk, and costs of further litigation, the parties’ settlement of Plaintiff’s 

FLSA claims represents a fair and reasonable resolution in accordance with Lynn’s Food. If the 

parties continued to litigate this matter, they would be forced to engage in costly litigation to prove 

their respective claims and defenses. This settlement, therefore, is a reasonable means for both 

parties to minimize future risks and litigation costs. 

(4) The Probability of Success on the Merits Supports Settlement.

The parties disagree about the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and the applicable 

defenses, making protracted litigation inevitable if the settlement is not approved. Defendants 

maintain that Plaintiff was exempt from overtime. Defendants acknowledge that they did not keep 

time records for the majority of the time that Mr. Saez worked, but assert that any time he worked 

beyond a 40-hour workweek was de minimis. Furthermore, Mr. Saez was compensated with 

discretionary bonuses, which work to offset any overtime he may have been owed. Upon conferral, 

Defendants produced records that reflected the time records for at least 16 weeks. Further 

Defendants produced records that reflected the discretionary bonuses and vacation time Plaintiff 

received during his employment for which Defendants would be entitled to a set off. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s probability of success on the merits, and the uncertainty that he would be owed any 

amount – let alone an amount greater than what the settlement provides – further supports the 

validity, reasonableness, and fairness of the settlement at issue.

Case 1:22-cv-23485-JAL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2023 Page 4 of 7
5 of 7

(5) The Range of Possible Recovery Supports Approval.

The parties’ settlement takes into account the validity of Plaintiff’s claims, the defenses 

thereto, and the length of time it would take for Plaintiff to actually recover a final judgment against 

Defendants.

(6) Counsel Agree That The Settlement Is Fair.

The “FLSA requires judicial review of 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, 307 F. App'x 349, 351 

(11th Cir. 2009). Considering the facts of this case, including the time worked, the amount claimed, 

and what the records reflect, as well as the potential defenses involved the parties agree that the 

proposed settlement reached by the parties and reflected in Exhibit “A” represents a fair and 

reasonable compromise of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s counsel’s fees are reasonable given the time 

expended, the rates of Plaintiff’s counsel, and the potential for protracted litigation. Plaintiff’s 

counsel actually compromised the attorneys’ fees incurred in order to resolve this case at this 

juncture. Plaintiff’s counsel has expended over 20 hours and has incurred $604.00 in costs to date 

in the prosecution of the instant action. According to the terms of the Agreement for 

Representation, Plaintiff’s attorneys are allowed to bill an hourly rate for their time. The billing 

attorneys are Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. who has over seven (7) years of experience and Jocelyn R. 

Rocha, who has less than one (1) year experience. Courts have awarded Mrs. Saavedra $310.00 

per hour as a senior associate of the law firm and an experienced labor and employment attorney, 

who is known in the South Florida legal community for performing respectably in labor and 

employment matters. Ms. Rocha, a first-year associate, seeks approval of her rate at $200.00 per 

hour, which is customary rates in South Florida for her level of experience. See Interim Healthcare, 

Case 1:22-cv-23485-JAL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2023 Page 5 of 7
6 of 7

Inc., Plaintiff, v. Health Care@Home, Llc, et al., 17-CV-61378-BLOOM/VALLE (S.D. Fla. Nov. 

27, 2019)(reducing the hourly rate of a first year associate from $290.00/hr. to $250.00/hr); Prof’l 

LED Lighting, Ltd. v. Aadyn Tech. LLC, 14-cv-61376, 2015 WL 11570970, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 

22, 2015) (approving hourly rates between $220 and $325); Rubenstein v. The Florida Bar, No. 

14-CV-20786, 2015 WL 1470633, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2015), report and recommendation 

adopted, 2015 WL 11216722, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2015).

Plaintiff’s counsel, Nathaly Saavedra has expended 15.01 hours of time prosecuting this matter 

(not including time expended on the instant motion at bar). See Time Sheet for Nathaly Saavedra, 

as Exhibit “B.” Plaintiff’s counsel, Jocelyn R. Rocha, has expended at least 13.12 hours of time 

prosecuting this matter. See Time Sheet for Jocelyn R. Rocha, as Exhibit “C.” The time expended 

in prosecuting Plaintiff’s claims is not duplicative in nature and does not include time for billing 

for administrative tasks. Plaintiff’s attorney time does include time for attorney conferences and 

supervision of attorney tasks. Plaintiff could legitimately request $7,333.10 in fees and $820.00 in 

costs. Plaintiff’s counsel, as part of a negotiated settlement, has reduced their fee to $5,180.00 and 

$820.00 in costs. 

Given that the settlement is fair and reasonable on its face, and that Plaintiff’s recovery was 

not adversely affected by the amount of attorneys’ fees paid to counsel, Plaintiff and Defendants 

respectfully request that the Court approve the Settlement Agreement and dismiss Plaintiff’s FLSA 

action with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs, fees and expenses (except as otherwise 

set forth in the parties’ Settlement Agreement). The parties further stipulate to the dismissal with 

prejudice of this action upon approval by the Court of the Settlement Agreement and upon further 

condition that the Court retain jurisdiction over this matter for a period of 30 days to enforce the 

parties’ Settlement Agreement.

[signatures on following page]

Case 1:22-cv-23485-JAL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2023 Page 6 of 7
7 of 7

Dated this 14th day of February 2023.

/s/ 

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 118315

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

Juan J. Perez, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 115784

Email: juan@peregonza.com

Jocelyn R. Rocha, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 1039302

Email: jocelyn@peregonza.com

PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive

Suite 290

Miami, FL 33126

Tel. (786) 650-0202

Fax. (786) 650-0200

Counsel for Plaintiff

/s/ 

Toussaint Cummings, Esq. (119877) 

toussaint@fairlawattorney.com 

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: (305) 230-4884

Counsel for Defendants

Case 1:22-cv-23485-JAL Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2023 Page 7 of 7