Fields v. tmx Finance, Llc, Inc. et al
Court Docket Sheet

Southern District of Alabama

1:2015-cv-00053 (alsd)

ORDER denying {{35}} Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement with leave to refile another motion and revised settlement agreement by 8/19/15, as set out. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 8/3/2015.

Case 1:15-cv-00053-KD-B Document 36 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION LAMYEIA FIELDS,) Plaintiff,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-53-KD-B) TITLEMAX OF ALA. et al.,) Defendant.) ORDER This matter is before the Court on the parties’ "Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement." (Doc. 35). Plaintiff Fields ("Fields") originally filed this action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. Fields has not moved the Court to conditionally certify this lawsuit as a collective action and has elected to resolve her claims in this matter on an individual basis. (Doc. 35 at 2). Upon consideration and for the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is DENIED with leave to refile another motion and revised settlement agreement on or before August 19, 2015. I. Background Fields initiated this action against Defendant Titlemax of Alabama, Inc. ("Titlemax") and TMX Finance, LLC ("TMX") for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 28 U.S.C. §201 et seq., ("the FLSA"). (Doc. 1). "[Fields] alleges that she was not paid her agreed upon hourly rate" and that she was "not paid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in certain workweeks." (Doc. 35 citing Doc. 1). Fields sought relief in the form of unpaid back wages, statutory liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs." (Id.) 1 Case 1:15-cv-00053-KD-B Document 36 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 9 The parties reached a settlement of Fields’ claims and jointly moved for approval of the settlement. (Doc. 35). A copy of the settlement agreement, signed by all parties was also submitted. (Doc. 35-1). II. Analysis In order to approve the settlement of an FLSA case, the Court must determine whether the settlement is a "fair and reasonable [resolution] of a bona fide dispute" over FLSA provisions. Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 1982). In Lynn’s Food Stores, the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged two methods for settlement of claims brought pursuant to the FLSA: Supervision by the Secretary of Labor or by court approval in a private action where plaintiff is represented by counsel. Id. at 1353. In Silva v. Miller, the Eleventh Circuit wrote that the FLSA "contemplates that'the wronged employee should receive his full wages plus the penalty without incurring any expense for legal fees or costs.’" 307 F. App'x 349, 351 (11th Cir. 2009)(internal citation omitted). Thus, in any case where a plaintiff agrees to accept less than full FLSA wages and liquidated damages, the plaintiff has compromised the claim and may do so only with Court approval of the settlement agreement. The rationale is that [s]ettlements may be permissible in the context of a suit brought by employees under the FLSA for back wages because initiation of the action by the employees provides some assurance of an adversarial context. The employees are likely to be represented by an attorney who can protect their rights under the statute. Thus, when the parties submit a settlement to the court for approval, the settlement is more likely to reflect a reasonable compromise of disputed issues than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer’s overreaching. If a settlement in an employee FLSA suit does reflect a reasonable compromise over issues, such as FLSA coverage or computation of back wages, that are actually in 2 Case 1:15-cv-00053-KD-B Document 36 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 9 dispute; we allow the district court to approve the settlement in order to promote the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation. Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1354. The circuit court concluded that [o]ther than a section 216(c) payment supervised by the Department of Labor, there is only one context in which compromises of FLSA back wage or liquidated damage claims may be allowed: a stipulated judgment entered by a court which has determined that a settlement proposed by an employer and employees, in a suit brought by the employees under the FLSA, is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions. Id. at 1355. Therefore, before entry of a stipulated judgment, the Court must determine whether there is a "bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions" and then determine whether the proposed settlement agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of that dispute. A. Bona Fide Dispute Section 216(b) of the FLSA provides that "... [a]ny employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages..." 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Section 207 is captioned "Maximum Hours" and paragraph (a)(1) states: Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). 3 Case 1:15-cv-00053-KD-B Document 36 Filed 08/04/15 Page 4 of 9 Specifically, Fields alleges that the Defendants failed to pay her at the correct rate of pay for straight time hours1 and failed to pay her overtime wages for certain hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek. The parties assert, "After exchanging information and discussing the merits of [Fields’] claims, the [p]arties continue to disagree as to whether unpaid straight time or overtime wages are owed to [Fields] and whether Defendant [TMX] is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction." (Doc. 35 at 4-5). Thus, the parties assert that this settlement is a product of an arm’s-length negotiation and resolves their bona fide dispute. (Id.). Upon review of the complaint and answer (Docs. 1 and 10) and considering the parties’ representations, the Court finds that there is a "bona fide dispute" as to whether the Defendants violated the FLSA because it failed to pay Fields for unpaid wages based on her overtime hours while employed by Defendant Titlemax. (Doc. 35). B. Fair and Reasonable Resolution Lynn’s Food requires this Court to determine whether Fields’ compromise of her claims is fair and reasonable. Lynn’s Food, 679 F.2d at 1352-1355. A general framework for evaluating the fairness of an FLSA compromise includes: "(1) the existence of fraud or collusion behind the settlement; (2) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the probability of plaintiff's success on the merits; (5) the range of possible recovery; and (6) the opinions of the counsel." Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1241 (M.D. Fla. 2010). 1 Fields alleges "Defendants failed to include bonuses and incentive payments in Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay and therefore underpaid her overtime pay." (Doc. 1 at 5). 4 Case 1:15-cv-00053-KD-B Document 36 Filed 08/04/15 Page 5 of 9 1. Compromise of the FLSA Claim Under the FLSA, "[a]ny employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages[.]" 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). In arriving at the sums due to Fields, the parties assert that both sides compromised their claims and that the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of the dispute. (Doc. 35 at 5-6). The joint motion states: The Agreement provides for a total payment of $14,200.00 to [Fields]--$7,100.00 for unpaid wages and $7,100.00 in liquidated damages. [Fields] originally estimated her unpaid straight time and overtime wages to total $16,850.60 (Doc. 29). Defendants provided [Fields] with information which challenged the rate of pay and number of hours worked on which she based her original calculation and tended to show that the "off-the-clock" work she alleged was not compensable. In light of that information, and after further discussion between the [p]arties, the [p]arties agreed that $7,100.00 was a fair and reasonable compromise of the amount of unpaid wages [Fields] claims she was owed. (Doc. 35 at 3). Based on the Court’s review of the matter and the parties’ representations, this compromise reflects a fair and reasonable settlement of Fields’ FLSA claim. 2. Scope and Terms of the Settlement Agreement Determining that the settlement amount is fair and reasonable does not conclude the Court’s inquiry. The assessment of fairness is guided by prevailing FLSA case law and a review of the specific terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. The proposed joint settlement agreement contains several disfavored provisions. The Court addresses each. 5 Case 1:15-cv-00053-KD-B Document 36 Filed 08/04/15 Page 6 of 9 a. Prospective Release Section 5.1 of the proposed settlement agreement states: For and in consideration of the required acts and promises set forth in the text of this Agreement, EMPLOYEE hereby knowingly and voluntarily releases and discharges EMPLOYERS, and its predecessors, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, former employees, attorneys, and related entities, from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, complaints or charges, known or unknown, of any kind or character, in tort, in contract, or under any other law or statute whatsoever, which EMPLOYEE has or might have as a result of, or in any way connected with EMPLOYEE'S employment or separation of employment with EMPLOYERS, including but not limited to wage or benefit-related claims (including without limitation, claims for adjusted compensation, bonus, severance, vacation, ove1time pay, liquidated damages or violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and including but not limited to any claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and 1871, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended, The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and all other local, stale or federal laws relating to payment of wages, discrimination, denial or termination of any health benefit or benefits of any other kind, or any claims of breach or violation of public policy, wrongful, retaliatory or constructive discharge, promissory estoppel, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation of concealment, retaliation, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, unfair practices, intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct, negligence, negligent misrepresentation or concealment, retaliation, wrongful or bad faith termination, defamation and other business or personal injury, or any other claims or rights to damages, whether contractual, liquidated, compensatory, exemplary, or punitive, or rights to or claims for injunctive or equitable relief, or rights to or claims for expenses, costs, fees, attorneys' fees, and all losses of any kind whatsoever, which the Parties have or might have by virtue of any fact(s), act(s) or event(s) occurring prior to the effective date of this Agreement. (Doc. 35-1 at 3-4). The settlement agreement contains a broad sweeping release of all claims related to Plaintiff's FLSA claim, and release of many other specific and general types of claims in exchange for the consideration set forth (including but not limited to Title VII, ERISA, ADA, ADEA, etc.). (Id.) This type of release provision has been called a "pervasive" release. Courts 6 Case 1:15-cv-00053-KD-B Document 36 Filed 08/04/15 Page 7 of 9 are hesitant to approve such releases because any discount or devaluation of the consideration for the FLSA claim as a result of this release renders the FLSA settlement unfair and unreasonable. As explained in Moreno v. Regions Bank:... a non-cash, but still valuable, concession by an employee affects both the "fairness" and the "full compensation" component of a settlement. A gratuitous concession in exchange for the required payment is "unfair" because (1) the FLSA obligates the employer without exception or condition to pay the full amount owed and (2) a valuable, non-cash concession extended to the employer in exchange for otherwise "full compensation" effectively reduces the employer's payment by an amount equal to the value of the concession (and accordingly reduces the employer's payment to less than "full compensation"). 729 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1348-49 (M.D. Fla. 2010)(citing Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F.Supp.2d 1227 (M.D. Fla. 2010)). Additionally, this type of release shifts the risk to the employee: An employee who executes a broad release effectively gambles, exchanging unknown rights for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars to which he is otherwise unconditionally entitled. In effect, the employer requests a pervasive release in order to transfer to the employee the risk of extinguishing an unknown claim. In the language of Hydradry, a pervasive release is a "side deal" [] in which the employer extracts a gratuitous (although usually valueless) release of all claims in exchange for money unconditionally owed to the employee. (If an employee signs a pervasive release as part of a "side deal" and later discovers a valuable but released claim, the employee perhaps looks for compensation from the attorney who advise the employee to grant the release.) Although inconsequential in the typical civil case (for which settlement requires no judicial review), an employer is not entitled to use an FLSA claim (a matter arising from the employer's failing to comply with the FLSA) to leverage a release from liability unconnected to the FLSA. Id. at 1351 (citations and footnote omitted). See also Webb v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 5:11-CV-106 CAR, 2011 WL 6743284, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 23, 2011)(declining approval of a pervasive release); Hamilton v. Brinker Int'l Payroll Co., L.P., No. 5:10-CV-187-OC-37TBS, 2011 WL 6032945, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2011)(providing that a pervasive release of unknown claims "fails judicial scrutiny."). 7 Case 1:15-cv-00053-KD-B Document 36 Filed 08/04/15 Page 8 of 9 Additionally, Section 6.2 states, "EMPLOYEE agrees that she will not permit herself to be a member of any class or group seeking relief against EMPLOYERS in any matter relating to her employment or separation of employment from EMPLOYERS." (Doc. 35-1 at 5). The Court also finds this section to include a pervasive release. Because,"[a] compromise of an FLSA claim that contains a pervasive release of unknown claims fails judicial scrutiny," the Court will not approve it. Moreno v. Regions Bank, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1352 (M.D. Fla. 2010). b. Bar on Future Employment Section 5.5 states: "As part of the consideration for inducing EMPLOYERS to settle this matter, EMPLOYEE agrees never to reapply for or accept employment with EMPLOYERS or any of its subsidiaries and understand that if she does, such application will be rejected and/or such employment will be terminated pursuant to this Agreement." (Doc. 35-1 at 4-5). The Court finds the Middle District of Georgia’s evaluation of a waiver of future employment instructive: [T]he instant future-employment waiver, without more, can also be viewed as punishment for the exercise of a legal right under the FLSA, which would be inconsistent with the purpose of the statute. No matter how "voluntary" Plaintiff's submission to this provision may be, the Court believes that the inclusion of overly broad provisions like this in FLSA settlement agreements have implications that reach far beyond the parties involved. Because this agreement will become part of the public record, other employees seeking to vindicate rights under FLSA may feel deterred from doing so for fear that employers might seek to exact from them a promise to never again apply for future employment….[The Defendant] is welcome to hire whom it chooses, as employers are permitted to do within the bounds of the law. In this Court's view, however, expansive provisions like the instant future employment waiver are unconscionable when placed in a FLSA agreement—a characterization that is not negated by the agreement of the parties. Nichols v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-88 WLS, 2013 WL 5933991, at *5-6 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 1, 2013) (Striking future employment waiver provision where there was no evidence of 8 Case 1:15-cv-00053-KD-B Document 36 Filed 08/04/15 Page 9 of 9 Plaintiff’s desire or lack thereof to pursue future employment with the defendant). See also Cruz v. Winter Garden Realty, LLC, No. 6:12-CV-1098-ORL-22, 2013 WL 4774617, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2013)(Holding "Likewise, where a plaintiff indicates that she does not desire re-employment, the inclusion of a waiver of future employment does not render the settlement unfair."). The Court has found nothing in the record indicating that Fields does not desire future employment with the Defendant. Thus, the waiver of future employment will not stand in its current state. III. Conclusion Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, the joint motion is DENIED with leave to re-file on or before August 17, 2015, to include a copy an amended written settlement agreement and sufficient documentation to allow the Court to make a determination as to whether the fees and costs agreed to in the settlement agreement are reasonable.2 DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of August 2015. s/Kristi K. DuBose KRISTI K. DuBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 For example, Plaintiff did not submit any affidavits, billing records, or supporting documentation, which would permit the Court to evaluate whether the hours expended and rates charged were reasonable. 9

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 568 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
02/02/2015
COMPLAINT Plaintiff's Original Complaint against All Defendants (Filing fee $400 receipt number 1128-1692635, Online Credit Card Payment), filed by Lamyeia Fields.
1
Exhibit A - Lamyeia Fields Consent
2
Civil Cover Sheet
3
Request for Summons
4
Request for Summons
4 Attachments
2
02/02/2015
MOTION for Jesse Hamilton Forester to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 50, Receipt number 1128-1692750, Online Credit Card Payment.) by Lamyeia Fields.
1
Exhibit A - Application
2
Certificate of Good Standing
3
Text of Proposed Order
3 Attachments
3
02/03/2015
ENDORSED ORDER granting [Doc. 2] Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Jesse Hamilton Forester. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 2/3/2015.
4
02/03/2015
Summons Issued as to TitleMax of Alabama, Inc. Note to Counsel: The Summons have been issued. Please print copies necessary for service.
5
02/03/2015
Summons Issued as to TMX Finance, LLC. Note to Counsel: The Summons have been issued. Please print copies necessary for service.
6
02/04/2015
Service Order entered 2/4/2015. Plaintiff to notify the Court the action taken to effect service and the results thereof. Service order deadline set to 3/19/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 2/3/2015.
7
02/06/2015
NOTICE by Lamyeia Fields Plaintiff's Certificate of Interested Parties
8
02/12/2015
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lamyeia Fields. TMX Finance, LLC served on 2/9/2015, answer due 3/2/2015
9
02/12/2015
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lamyeia Fields. TitleMax of Alabama, Inc. served on 2/9/2015, answer due 3/2/2015
10
03/02/2015
ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by TitleMax of Alabama, Inc.
11
03/02/2015
MOTION to Dismiss by TMX Finance, LLC.
12
03/02/2015
Brief filed by TMX Finance, LLC re 11 MOTION to Dismiss.
13
03/02/2015
Notice of Assignment to Magistrate Judge for trial. Consent Form due by 4/16/2015.
1
https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/doc1/02112139032" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/02112139032','57121','39','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> consent form)
1 Attachment
14
03/02/2015
PRELIMINARY SCHEDULING ORDER entered; Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 4/16/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 3/2/2015.
15
03/02/2015
Disclosure Statement Mailed; Disclosure Statement Due 3/9/2015.
1
https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/doc1/02112139058" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/02112139058','57121','43','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> Disclosure statement)
1 Attachment
16
03/02/2015
Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Defendant TMX Finance, LLC.
17
03/02/2015
Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Defendant TitleMax of Alabama, Inc.
18
03/03/2015
Order Setting Motion Deadline re: 11 MOTION to Dismiss filed by TMX Finance, LLC; Responses due by Plaintiff by 3/24/2015; Replies due by defendant on 4/7/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 3/3/2015.
19
03/03/2015
AMENDED Notice of Assignment to Magistrate Judge for trial. Consent Form due by 4/7/2015.
1
https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/doc1/02112139487" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/02112139487','57121','52','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> consent form)
1 Attachment
20
03/03/2015
Remark: Attorney admission letter and application to Mr. Braziel; Reply due within 7 days;
1
https://ecf.alsd.uscourts.gov/doc1/02112139525" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/02112139525','57121','54','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> application for admission)
1 Attachment
21
03/03/2015
FLSA RULE 16(b) SCHEDULING ORDER: Preliminary Scheduling order entered on March 2, 2015 is WITHDRAWN. All provisions of Rule 26(a)(1) concerning initial disclosures are WAIVED. Position Regarding Settlement due by 5/26/2015. If parties cannot reach a settlement a Status Conference set for 6/18/2015 10:00 AM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 1A, 113 St. Joseph Street, Mobile, AL 36602 before Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins. All discovery in this case is STAYED except as provided in this Order;. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 3/3/2015.
22
03/05/2015
Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Defendant TitleMax of Alabama, Inc.
23
03/05/2015
Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Defendant TMX Finance, LLC.
03/05/2015
REFERRAL OF Amended 23 Corporate Disclosure Statement, 22 Corporate Disclosure Statement to Judge Sonja F. Bivins. (Text entry; no document attached.)
24
03/06/2015
NOTICE of filing amended disclosure statement by TMX Finance, LLC Modified on 3/11/2015
25
03/10/2015
MOTION for J. Derek Braziel to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 50, Receipt number 1128-1710681, Online Credit Card Payment.) by Lamyeia Fields.
1
Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing
2
Exhibit Admission Form
2 Attachments
03/11/2015
MOTIONS REFERRED: 25 MOTION for J. Derek Braziel to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 50, Receipt number 1128-1710681, Online Credit Card Payment.) Referred to Judge Sonja F. Bivins. (Text entry; no document attached.)
03/11/2015
REFERRAL OF 24 Notice (Other) to Judge Sonja F. Bivins. (Text entry; no document attached.)
26
03/11/2015
ENDORSED ORDER granting [Doc. 25] Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by J. Derek Braziel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 3/11/2015.
27
03/20/2015
Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant TMX's Motion to Dismiss by Lamyeia Fields.
28
03/20/2015
ENDORSED ORDER granting 27 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline for Plaintiff's response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is EXTENDED to April 28, 2015. Any reply by Defendant shall be filed by May 11, 2015. Plaintiff is cautioned that there will be no further extensions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 3/20/2015.
29
03/24/2015
NOTICE by Lamyeia Fields of Filing Answers to Courts Interrogatories
30
04/14/2015
This action has been transferred from the docket of Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins and is now assigned to the docket of Judge Kristi K. DuBose. To ensure that your pleadings are referred to the proper Judge and Magistrate Judge with as little delay as possible, please use the letter suffix KD-B after the case number on all future pleadings.
31
04/22/2015
NOTICE of Settlement Joint Notice of Settlement by Lamyeia Fields
04/23/2015
REFERRAL OF 31 Notice of Settlement to Judge DuBose. (Text entry; no document attached.)
32
06/09/2015
Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Settlement Documents by TMX Finance, LLC, TitleMax of Alabama, Inc.
1
Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order
1 Attachment
06/09/2015
MOTIONS REFERRED: 32 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Settlement Documents to Judge DuBose (Text entry; no document attached.)
33
06/10/2015
ENDORSED ORDER granting 32 Motion for Extension of Time to File as follows: the parties shall file the relevant settlement documents (including but not limited to a substantive motion to approve settlement with any and all necessary submissions in support) on or before July 9, 2015. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 6/10/2015.
34
06/17/2015
ENDORSED Order that the status conference set for June 18, 2015 at 10:00 AM pursuant to the Scheduling Order entered in this case is CANCELED; Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 6/17/2015. (mjn) Modified on 6/17/2015
35
07/01/2015
Joint MOTION to Approve Settlement Agreement by TMX Finance, LLC, TitleMax of Alabama, Inc.
1
Exhibit Settlement Agreement
1 Attachment
07/02/2015
MOTIONS REFERRED: 35 Joint MOTION to Approve Settlement Agreement to Judge DuBose (Text entry; no document attached.)
36
08/04/2015
ORDER denying 35 Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement with leave to refile another motion and revised settlement agreement by 8/19/15, as set out. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 8/3/2015.
37
08/14/2015
Joint MOTION to Approve Settlement Agreement by TMX Finance, LLC, TitleMax of Alabama, Inc.
1
Exhibit Exhibit A - Amended Settlement Agreement
2
Exhibit Exhibit B - Attorney Declaration
3
Exhibit Exhibit C - Attorneys' Time/Fees
4
Exhibit Exhibit D - Costs
4 Attachments
08/14/2015
MOTIONS REFERRED: 37 Joint MOTION to Approve Settlement Agreement to Judge DuBose (Text entry; no document attached.)
38
09/04/2015
ENDORSED ORDER finding as moot [Doc. 11] Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 9/4/2015.
39
09/28/2015
ORDER denying 37 Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement, with leave to re-file on or before October 19, 2015. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 9/28/2015. copies to parties.
40
10/19/2015
Second MOTION to Approve Settlement Agreement by TMX Finance, LLC.
10/20/2015
MOTIONS REFERRED: 40 Second MOTION to Approve Settlement Agreement to Judge DuBose (Text entry; no document attached.)
41
10/27/2015
ORDER granting 40 Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and the Settlement Agreement is approved. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 10/27/2015.
42
11/06/2015
STIPULATION of Dismissal by TMX Finance, LLC, TitleMax of Alabama, Inc.
11/09/2015
REFERRAL OF 42 Stipulation of Dismissal to Judge DuBose. (Text entry; no document attached.)
43
11/12/2015
Order dismissing this action with prejudice as set out. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 11/12/2015.
44
11/12/2015
JUDGMENT entered that the settlement agreement between Lamyeia Fields and Titlemax of Ala. et al., is approved. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, this FLSA action is dismissed with prejudice. The Court does not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 11/12/2015.
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.