Monterroso Romero v. Agent Au Pair, Inc.

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—but are not limited to—violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–219. (Dkt. 1 at 8–32, 40–48.) These parties move the court to approve their proposed settlement and to dismiss Agent Au Pair from this case with prejudice. (Dkt. 39.) The magistrate judge assigned to this case recommends granting this motion. (Dkt. 45.) No party has filed objections to the recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. Upon consideration, the court adopts the recommendation, grants the motion, and dismisses Agent Au Pair from this case with prejudice. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations made by a magistrate judge, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. A party must serve and file written objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and the failure to object in a timely fashion “waives the right to

challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. With respect to dispositive matters, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the recommendation to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a

de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate’s report to which objections are filed.”). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any legal conclusions de novo. Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D.

Fla. 2019). Here, upon conducting a careful and complete review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court agrees with the recommendation in full. Accordingly:

1. The magistrate judge’s recommendation (Dkt. 45) is ADOPTED. 2. The parties’ motion (Dkt. 39) is GRANTED, and their proposed settlement is APPROVED. 3. All claims against Agent Au Pair in this case are DISMISSED with prejudice, and Agent Au Pair is TERMINATED as a Defendant in this case. 4. Agent Au Pair’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, strike (Dkt. 21) is DENIED as moot. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on May 23, 2025.

i te JULIE S. SNEED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

-3-