ARNALDO MORALES ALVARADO
v.
CROWN ROOFING, LLC

M.D. Fla. | 2020-09-16
No. 2:19-cv-660
District Court, M.D. Florida (2020) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court

Defendant. /

ORDER1

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Stipulation for Dismissal Without Prejudice. (Doc. 31) and supplemental response on the dismissal (Doc. 33). In September 2019, Plaintiff Arnaldo Morales Alvarado sued Defendant Crown Roofing Group, LLC for unpaid overtime wages and unpaid wages for attending doctors’ appointments. (Doc. 1). The parties now stipulate to dismissing the case without prejudice and without an award of fees or costs to party. (Doc. 31). The parties also have resolved, without compromise, Alvarado’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, meaning the Court need not review and approve the settlement for fairness. See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F. 2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982); King v. My Online Neighborhood, Inc., No. 6:06-cv-435-Orl-22JGG, 2007 WL 737575, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2007). After careful consideration of the parties’ Joint Notice, the record, and applicable case law, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice.

Lhe hlatrrthe 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
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. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) The above-captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice. (2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate all pending deadlines, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 16th day of September 2020.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Beattie v. Citrus Mem'l Hosp., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …der the reasonableness of any award of attorney's fees, but it is not required to conduct “an in-depth analysis unless the unreasonableness is apparent from the face of the documents.” King v. My Online Neighborhood, Inc., No. 6:06-cv-435-Orl-22JGG, 2007 WL 737575, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2007) (quoting Perez v. Nationwide Protective Servs., Case No. 6:05-cv-328-ORL-22JGG (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2005)). As the total fee award sought in this case is not patently unreasonable based on the history of this case and…
    1 / 2
  • Lochren v. Horne LLP (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …However, the FLSA does not require the Court to conduct “'an in depth analysis . . unless the unreasonableness of such award is apparent from the face of the documents." King v. My Online Neighborhood, Inc., No. 6:06-cv-435-Orl-22JGG, ---PAGE 8--- 2007 WL 737575, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2007) (quoting Perez v. Nationwide Protective Servs., No. 6:05-cv-328-Orl-22JGG (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2005)); see also Hosier v. Mattress Firm, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-294-J-32JRK, 2012 WL 2813960, at *6 (M.D. Fla. June 8, 2012), r…
    1 / 2
  • Monroe v. Fanatics Retail Grp. Fulfillment, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2024)
    …y from the payment to plaintiff(s), “an in depth analysis [of the reasonableness of the fees] is not necessary unless the unreasonableness is apparent from the face of the documents.” King v. My Online Neighborhood, Inc., No. 6:06-cv-435- Orl-22JGG, 2007 WL 737575, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2007); McGinnis v. Taylor Morrison, Inc., 3:09-cv-1204-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2010). III. Analysis The Agreement provides that Plaintiff will receive $5,000 for overtime wages, $5,000 for liquidated damages, and that…
    1 / 2

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw