WILLIAMS
v.
WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, 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.
Plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees as the prevailing party in an FLSA case where a settlement was approved and final judgment entered.
Plaintiff settled his FLSA claims against Defendant, and the court approved the settlement and entered final judgment. Plaintiff then moved for attorn…
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 Local Rule 7.01 cases and more on FLexlaw
This Fair Labor Standards Act case is before the Court on Plaintiff Melvin Williams’ Unopposed Motion to Award Attorney's Fees (Doc. 32). On June 6, 2022, Williams informed the Court that the parties had agreed to settle his FLSA claims against Defendant Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. (Doc. 24). On August 17, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey recommended that the Court approve the settlement agreement and enter final judgment in favor of Williams against Waste Pro. (Doc. 29). On September 6, 2022, the Court adopted the report and recommendation, approved the settlement agreement, and the Clerk entered final judgment in favor of Williams against Waste Pro on September 7, 2022. (Docs. 30, 31). Williams now moves the Court to determine whether he is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs against Waste Pro pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and Local Rule 7.01. Local Rule 7.01’s bifurcated attorney’s fees procedure requires parties to first demonstrate an entitlement to attorney’s fees before filing a supplemental motion on amount. Local Rule 7.01(a), (b). “Section 216(b) of the [FLSA] makes fee awards mandatory for prevailing plaintiffs.” Laney v. BBB Logistics, Inc., 844 F. App’x 203, 207 (11th Cir. 2021)1 (quoting Kreager v. Solomon & Flanagan, P.A., 775 F. 2d 1541, 1542 (11th Cir. 1985)). A party prevails when he obtains either a judgment on the merits or a consent decree. Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Hum. Res., 532 U.S. 598, 605 (2011); Cf. Jones v. Waste Pro USA, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-503-GAP-DCI, 2022 WL 4348584, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 4305923 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2022) (discussing how plaintiffs prevail when accepting settlements through offers of judgment). Here, the Court approved the parties’ settlement agreement and entered final judgment in favor of Williams against Waste Pro, and Waste Pro does not contest
Williams’ entitlement to attorney’s fees. (Docs. 30, 32). Accordingly, it is hereby
f y. Cimotheg Corrig [...]
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN
“= _~United States District Judge rmv Copies to: Honorable Joel B. Toomey United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McNamara v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 30 F.4th 1055 (11th Cir. 2022)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001)
- Kreager v. Solomon & Flanagan, P.A., 775 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1985)