Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yanes v. ACCEL Heating & Cooling, LLC

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division

March 8, 2017

Carlos Yanes Plaintiff,
ACCEL Heating & Cooling, LLC, et al. Defendants.



         Plaintiff Carlos Yanes (Plaintiff) and Defendants ACCEL Heating and Cooling, LLC and Edward Riley, Jr., (collectively, “Defendants”), jointly move for approval of a settlement agreement. Plaintiff filed this action alleging that Defendants denied him overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. Article (“LE”) §§ 3-401 et seq., and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), Md. Code, LE §§ 3-501 et seq. ECF No. 1.

         The Court has reviewed the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14), the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement, and the Settlement Agreement and Release. ECF No. 18. For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that bona fide disputes exist under the FLSA, the settlement agreement is a fair and reasonable compromise of the disputes, and the attorney's fees are reasonable. See Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982); Leigh v. Bottling Group, LLC, No. DKC 10-0218, 2012 WL 460468, at * 4 (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2012); Lopez v. NTI, LLC, 748 F.Supp.2d 471, 478 (D. Md. 2010). Therefore, the Court will GRANT the motion and instruct the clerk to close this case.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Yanes worked for Defendants as a helper and technician from March 2009 to February 2015. Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage during that time. ECF No. 14 at ¶¶ 24-25. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied overtime wages during this time period for hours worked in excess of forty hours per work week. Id. ¶ 39.

         Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on July 14, 2016, styled as a class action. Plaintiff then amended his complaint on September 23, 2016 to proceed on his own behalf only. The parties engaged in early and fruitful settlement negotiations. ECF No. 18. On December 15, 2016, the parties submitted the Joint Motion for Settlement Approval. Id.


         A. FLSA Settlements

         The FLSA does not permit settlement or compromise over alleged FLSA violations except with (1) supervision by the Secretary of Labor or (2) a judicial finding that the settlement reflects “a reasonable compromise of disputed issues” rather than “a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer's overreaching.” Lynn's Food Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d at 1354; see also Lopez, 748 F.Supp.2d at 478 (explaining that courts assess FLSA settlements for reasonableness). These restrictions help carry out the purpose of the FLSA, which was enacted “to protect workers from the poor wages and long hours that can result from significant inequalities in bargaining power between employers and employees.” Duprey v. Scotts Co. LLC, 30 F.Supp.3d 404, 407 (D. Md. 2014). Before approving an FLSA settlement, courts must evaluate whether the “settlement proposed by an employer and employees . . . is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” Lynn's Food Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d at 1355 (emphasis added). To do so, courts examine whether there are FLSA issues actually in dispute, the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement, and the reasonableness of the attorney's fees. Duprey, 30 F.Supp.3d at 408 (internal citations omitted). “These factors are most likely to be satisfied where there is an ‘assurance of an adversarial context' and the employee is ‘represented by an attorney who can protect [his] rights under the statute.'” Id. (citing Lynn's Food Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d at 1354).

         B. Bona Fide Dispute

         In determining whether a bona fide dispute over FLSA liability exists, the Court reviews the pleadings, any subsequent court filings, and the parties' recitals in the proposed settlement. See Lomascolo v. Parsons Brinkernoff, Inc., No. 1:08cv1310 (AJT/JFA), 2009 WL 3094955, at *10 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2009). Here, the defendants expressly denied liability in response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and make no admissions of liability. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to overtime wages as a covered employee under the FLSA is a fact-specific inquiry that is frequently at the heart of FLSA litigation. See, e.g., Schultz v. Capital Int'l Sec., Inc., 466 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2006). The Court further notes that the parties engaged in extensive settlement negotiations where both sides vigorously contested the merits of the claims. Accordingly, this factor is satisfied.

         C. Fairness & Reasonableness

         In determining whether a settlement of FLSA claims is fair and reasonable, the Court may consider the following:

(1) the extent of discovery that has taken place; (2) the stage of the proceedings, including the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the absence of fraud or collusion in the settlement; (4) the experience of counsel who have represented the plaintiffs; (5) the opinions of class counsel and class members after receiving notice of the settlement whether expressed directly or through failure to object; and (6) the probability of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.