Monterroso Romero v. Agent Au Pair, Inc.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: March 28, 2025
• Docket: 6:24-cv-01749
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

SHARON PENELOPE MONTERROSO ROMERO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1749-JSS-RMN

AGENT AU PAIR, INC., and JAMES RAY FRANKLIN,

Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER 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 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.

ae S. ene _ NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

-3-