WHITEMAN
v.
KFORCE 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 approves the parties' settlement of the FLSA claim as fair and reasonable.
Plaintiff Sam Whiteman filed an FLSA overtime claim against his former employer, Kforce Inc. Several opt-in plaintiffs accepted offers of judgment, an…
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 Judicial Scrutiny Of Flsa Settlements cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Joint Motion for Approval of Plaintiff Alexander Lomaglio’s Acceptance of Offer of Judgment (Doc. # 126), filed on October 24, 2022. The Court grants the Motion.
I. Background
Plaintiff Sam Whiteman filed this action against his former employer Kforce Inc. on January 6, 2022. (Doc. # 1).
He filed an amended complaint on March 18, 2022, alleging violation of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of a collective. (Doc. # 43).
After the Court issued its fast-track Scheduling Order (Doc. # 23), the parties mediated in May 2022. (Doc. # 65).
At mediation, opt-in Plantiffs Blasche and Marshall accepted Kforce’s Offers of Judgment. (Id.; Doc. # 81; Doc. # 82).
The Court then approved the Offers of Judgment as to opt-in Plaintiffs Blasche and Marshall. (Doc. # 86).
Subsequently, four more opt-in Plaintiffs accepted Kforce’s Offers of Judgment (Doc. ## 103-106), which the Court also approved. (Doc. # 111).
Then, on October 14, 2022, the parties filed a notice
that opt-in Plaintiff Alexander Lomaglio had accepted Kforce’s Offer of Judgment. (Doc. # 123). At the Court’s direction, the parties now seek approval of the settlement. (Doc. # 126).
II. Analysis
Plaintiffs allege that Kforce violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA. Accordingly, any settlement of this claim reached between the parties is subject to judicial scrutiny. See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F. 2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Christopher v. Residential Realty Servs. Corp., No. 19-CV-61240, 2019 WL
11506012, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 19-61240-CIV, 2020 WL 7491558 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2020) (“[T]he Court has an independent duty to review the terms of the proposed Rule 68 offer of judgment in the context of the FLSA claims.”). Pursuant to the Offer of Judgment, the relevant parties have reached a settlement wherein it is agreed that opt-in Plaintiff Lomaglio will receive $10,327.33 in taxable wages. (Doc. # 126 at 4). It has also been agreed that his counsel will receive $5,772.67 in fees and costs. (Id.). Additionally, the parties explain that the issues in this case are still in dispute, but they have reached a settlement
to avoid the risks and costs of protracted litigation. (Id. at 6). Pursuant to Bonetti v. Embarq Management Company, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1228 (M.D. Fla. 2009), and other governing law, the Court approves the compromise reached by the parties in an effort to amicably settle this case.1 The settlement is
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that: (1) The Joint Motion for Approval of Plaintiff Alexander Lomaglio’s Acceptance of Offer of Judgment (Doc. # 126) is GRANTED. (2) The parties’ settlement is approved. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff Lomaglio only. (3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Lomaglio as set out in the Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment. (Doc. # 123). DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 25th day of October, 2022.
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ*COVINGTON