Trejo v. GMZ Masonry & Concrete, Inc.

M.D. Florida

Trejo v. GMZ Masonry & Concrete, Inc.

DecidedMay 14, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-00104

StatusUnknown

This text of Trejo v. GMZ Masonry & Concrete, Inc. (Trejo v. GMZ Masonry & Concrete, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trejo v. GMZ Masonry & Concrete, Inc., (M.D. Fla. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

VALENTE TREJO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:20-cv-104-FtM-38NPM

GMZ MASONRY & CONCRETE, INC.,

Defendant. / ORDER1 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Notice of FLSA Settlement Without Compromise and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment in Favor of the Plaintiff (Doc. 8). Plaintiff sued Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for unpaid overtime. (Doc. 1). The parties now inform the Court that Plaintiff’s claim has been resolved in full without compromise and with attorney’s fees and costs negotiated separately. Therefore, there is no need for the Court to review the settlement for fairness and it is approved. See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Mackenzie v. Kindred Hosps. East, L.L.C., 276 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1217 (M.D. Fla. 2003). While the parties negotiated attorney’s fees and costs separately, they were unable to resolve the matter. So the parties ask the Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and allow them to file a separate motion for attorney’s fees and costs in

1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. While the Court will not enter judgment at this time, it will reserve jurisdiction to determine reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. After that issued is resolved, the Court will enter judgment. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions or deadlines. 2. The Court RESERVES JURISDICTION to determine reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Any request for attorney's fees and costs must be FILED as a separate motion—in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54— on or before May 28, 2020. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 14th day of May, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

VALENTE TREJO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:20-cv-104-FtM-38NPM

GMZ MASONRY & CONCRETE, INC.,

Defendant. / ORDER1 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Notice of FLSA Settlement Without Compromise and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment in Favor of the Plaintiff (Doc. 8). Plaintiff sued Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for unpaid overtime. (Doc. 1). The parties now inform the Court that Plaintiff’s claim has been resolved in full without compromise and with attorney’s fees and costs negotiated separately. Therefore, there is no need for the Court to review the settlement for fairness and it is approved. See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Mackenzie v. Kindred Hosps. East, L.L.C., 276 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1217 (M.D. Fla. 2003). While the parties negotiated attorney’s fees and costs separately, they were unable to resolve the matter. So the parties ask the Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and allow them to file a separate motion for attorney’s fees and costs in

1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. While the Court will not enter judgment at this time, it will reserve jurisdiction to determine reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. After that issued is resolved, the Court will enter judgment. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions or deadlines. 2. The Court RESERVES JURISDICTION to determine reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Any request for attorney's fees and costs must be FILED as a separate motion—in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54— on or before May 28, 2020. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 14th day of May, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Trejo v. GMZ Masonry & Concrete, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trejo-v-gmz-masonry-concrete-inc-flmd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack