MONTERROSO ROMERO
v.
AGENT AU PAIR, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the motion to drop a party with prejudice because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 is not the appropriate authority for such a dismissal and FLSA claims require court approval of a fair settlement.
Plaintiff sued Defendant Agent Au Pair for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties filed a motion to drop Agent Au Pair from the lawsu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 21 cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, Sharon Penelope Monterroso Romero, asserts claims against Defendant Agent Au Pair, Inc., that include violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–219. (Dkt. 1 at 25–32.) Monterroso Romero and Agent Au Pair have filed a brief motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 seeking to drop Agent Au Pair from this lawsuit with prejudice because they have finalized a settlement agreement regarding this case. (Dkt. 28.) Upon consideration, for the reasons outlined below, the court denies the motion.
Although Rule 21 authorizes the court to “drop a party" from a lawsuit "on just terms" "at any time," Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, Rule 21 is not the "appropriate authority" for dropping a party "with prejudice,” Demarco v. Rakmanov, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv- 04256-SDG, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259630, at *15–16 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 13, 2021) (quoting Cramer v. Beiser, No. 3:13-cv-262-J-39JRK, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116983, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 13, 2018)). Even if it were, the court does not have enough information to determine that the "terms" of dropping Agent Au Pair with prejudice
are "just." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; Berntheizel v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., 343 F.R.D. 657, 661 (S.D. Fla. 2023) (“When determining whether dropping a party would be 'just' under Rule 21, courts evaluate whether dismissal of parties would cause substantial prejudice.").
Moreover, in general, the resolution of FLSA claims requires the court to determine that the parties' proposed settlement agreement represents "a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions." See Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F. 2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982). In their brief motion, Monterroso Romero and Agent Au Pair do not mention FLSA or provide sufficient information about their settlement agreement for the court to make the necessary determination. (See Dkts. 28, 28-1.) Indeed, in support of the motion, they cite only two cases, (see Dkt. 28 at 1–2; see also Dkt. 28-1), and those cases are distinguishable because they do not involve FLSA claims, see PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc., 844 F. 3d 1299, 1307 (11th Cir. 2016); Gallaher v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., No. 6:18-cv- 34-Orl-37TBS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66508, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2018), report and recommendation terminated as moot by 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66509, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2018).
Accordingly:
1. The motion to drop Agent Au Pair from this lawsuit with prejudice (Dkt. 28) is
DENIED.
2. On or before April 7, 2025, Monterroso Romero and Agent Au Pair shall file a joint motion for the court's approval of their settlement of the FLSA claims
against Agent Au Pair.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on March 28, 2025.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- O'Neal v. Am. Shaman Franchise Sys., Inc., 679 F. 2d 1350 (11th Cir. 2026)