MIRANDA
v.
VAN MAX, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This is a preliminary order in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) wage dispute between Miranda and Van Max, Inc. The court, upon receiving notice of settlement, orders the parties to file a motion for settlement approval by May 2, 2025, with specific requirements regarding disclosure of the settlement terms, compromised claims, and attorney's fees.
The court orders the parties to file a motion for settlement approval by May 2, 2025, supported by a fully executed settlement agreement and addressing specific factors: the amount of wages claimed, the extent of compromise, whether attorney's fees were agreed upon separately, evidence of reasonableness of fees and costs, and explanation of any additional provisions such as releases or confidentiality clauses.
“the parties shall file a motion for settlement approval pursuant to Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F. 2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982)”
Establishes the legal standard that governs FLSA settlement approval
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Miranda filed a FLSA case against Van Max, Inc. Defendant initially failed to make a formal appearance. Plaintiff sought default judgment bu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fair Labor Standards Act (Flsa) Settlement Approval cases and more on FLexlaw
Doc. No. 19. [fn 1] Based thereon, it is ORDERED that on or before May 2, 2025, the parties shall file a motion for settlement approval pursuant to Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F. 2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982). The motion must be supported by a copy of a fully executed settlement agreement. In the motion, the parties shall explain the amount of wages Plaintiff claimed to be owed, whether and to what extent Plaintiff compromised his claims, whether the amount of attorney's fees and costs was agreed upon separately and without regard to the amount Plaintiff agreed
to accept, and, if not, evidence that the attorney's fees and costs to be paid under the settlement are reasonable. In addition, if the parties have agreed to any additional terms such as a broad or general release, or confidentiality, nondisparagement, or no re-employment provisions, counsel must explain why such provisions do not impact the reasonableness and fairness of the settlement amount.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 18, 2025.
Uslis Han Price LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
[*2][fn 1]: Defendant has not made a formal appearance in the case. Plaintiff initially sought default judgment against Defendant, but in lieu of renewing that request, has filed this Notice. See Doc. Nos. 15-18.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- O'Neal v. Am. Shaman Franchise Sys., Inc., 679 F. 2d 1350 (11th Cir. 2026)