BRADFORD
v.
ANCIENT CITY GROUP LLC

M.D. Fla. | 2022-02-22
No. 3:21-cv-513
District Court, M.D. Florida (2022)

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.


Holding

The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, approving the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties engaged in settlement negotiations and reach…

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.


Opinion of the Court

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 35; Report) entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 15, 2022. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that the Joint Motion for Approval and Dismissal (Dkt. No. 33; Motion) be granted, the settlement be approved, and the case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 8. The parties have no objections to the Report. See Joint Notice of Non-Objection (Dkt. No. 36). The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007). The Court has conducted an independent examination of the record in this case and a de novo review of the legal conclusions. Plaintiff filed suit

against Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (FLSA). See Amended Complaint & Demand for Jury Trial (Dkt. No. 18). Thereafter, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, which resulted in a resolution of the issues and claims

raised in this case. See generally Motion. Upon review of the record, including the Report and Motion, the undersigned concludes that the settlement represents a “reasonable and fair” resolution of Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt

the Report. In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 35) is ADOPTED as the

opinion of the Court. 2. The Joint Motion for Approval and Dismissal (Dkt. No. 33) is

GRANTED.

3. For purposes of satisfying the FLSA, the settlement is

APPROVED.

4, This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions

or deadlines as moot and close this file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 22nd day of February, 2022.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge

ja Copies to: Counsel of Record


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw