LESCANO

v.

FRANCO AND COMPANY LLC

THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Execute the Settlement Agreement Pursuant to the Terms Reached at the Settlement Conference ("Motion to Compel") [DE 35].¹

On October 9, 2024, I conducted a settlement conference in this matter. The parties reached a settlement in which they agreed to the following terms (the “Terms"): (1) Defendants will pay Plaintiff a total of $10,500, broken down as follows: (a) $1,750 for unpaid wages; (b) $1,750 for liquidated damages; (c) $1,000 as consideration for a general release; and (d) $6,000 for Plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs; (2) payment will be made within 30 days of Plaintiff signing a written settlement agreement memorializing the terms upon which the parties agreed (payment would also be contingent upon the Court approving the parties' agreement);

(3) Plaintiff agreed to a general release of all claims against Defendants;² (4) Plaintiff acknowledged that she will not be rehired by Defendants; (5) Plaintiff acknowledged she suffered no physical injuries during her employment with Defendants; (6) Defendants do not admit liability; (7) the parties agreed to mutual non-disparagement – that they will not disparage each other; (8) Defendants will provide a neutral employment reference if one is requested; (9) the parties will keep the terms of their settlement confidential except as necessary to obtain court approval of the settlement; and (10) the Court will retain jurisdiction for 45 days to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.

At the conclusion of the October 9, 2024 settlement conference, I announced the Terms on the record. Both Plaintiff's counsel and Defendants' counsel confirmed on the record that the Court accurately stated all of the material terms of the parties' agreement. Additionally, both parties - Andrea Lescano and Jaime Franco (on behalf of himself and Franco and Company LLC) confirmed on the record that they heard me read the Terms, that they understood the Terms, and that they agreed to the Terms. Ms. Lescano, who was using the services of a certified interpreter, additionally confirmed that she was able to hear and understand everything I said through the interpreter and that she understood the Terms as translated by the interpreter. After the parties and their attorneys provided the foregoing confirmations, I congratulated the parties, noting that we had a "binding agreement."

I then proceeded to conduct a fairness hearing, as the parties indicated they were going to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction (which they have since done). As discussed in further detail on the record, I found that the parties' settlement was a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide FLSA dispute. Therefore, I approved the parties' settlement in accordance with Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F. 2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiff now refuses to sign a written settlement agreement memorializing the terms that the parties agreed upon at the October 9, 2024 settlement conference. Therefore, Defendants filed the Motion to Compel. In response,³ Plaintiff states, "I don't think it's right to sign this agreement with which I don't agree and even say [sic] points that were not agreed in the mediation.” [DE 37] at 1. Plaintiff also takes issue with, among other things, her attorney's actions and advice. Neither the Motion nor the response provide a copy of the written settlement agreement that was exchanged between the parties, so I do not know whether that agreement is consistent with the Terms. However, the Terms noted above are the specific terms that the parties agreed upon at the settlement conference. In other words, the Terms constitute the parties' settlement agreement.

Here, I find it appropriate to require the parties to comply with their settlement agreement (i.e., the Terms). “The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of the state's general contracts law.” Broadnax v. Sand Lake Cancer Ctr., P.A., 819 F. App'x 799, 801 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Wong v. Bailey, 752 F. 2d 619, 621 (11th Cir. 1985)). "In both Florida and federal courts, ‘settlements are highly favored and will be enforced whenever possible." Id. (quoting Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384, 1385 (Fla. 1985)). “To compel enforcement of a settlement agreement, its terms must be sufficiently specific and mutually agreed upon as to every essential element.” Id. (quoting Spiegel v. H. Allen Holmes, Inc., 834 So. 2d 295, 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)); see also Berman v. Kafka, 518 F. App’x 783, 785 (11th Cir. 2013) (“А

court will enforce a settlement agreement as long as there is objective evidence to enable the court to discover the essential terms of the settlement.”). “Uncertainty as to nonessential terms or small items will not preclude the enforcement of a settlement agreement.” Broadnax, 819 F. App'x at 801 (quoting Spiegel, 834 So. 2d at 297). Moreover, a settlement agreement does not have to be in writing or signed to be enforceable. Portner v. Koppel, 382 So. 3d 742, 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). “A settlement agreement is enforceable if there is a clear understanding of the agreement on the record 'notwithstanding that it was subject to being reduced to writing at a later time." Berman, 518 F. App'x at 785 (quoting Farrell v. Farrell, 661 So. 2d 1257, 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)).

As made clear on the record following the October 9, 2024 settlement conference, the parties clearly agreed on all essential terms and reached a binding settlement agreement. No further evidence is needed to confirm this point as I presided over the settlement conference, confirmed the Terms on the record at the conclusion of the settlement conference, and confirmed that the parties understood and agreed to those Terms. Although Plaintiff now refuses to execute a written settlement agreement, “the execution of [] settlement documents was not a condition precedent to the settlement agreement, but rather a mere procedural formality which both parties to the settlement agreement were obliged to perform.” Boyko v. Ilardi, 613 So. 2d 103, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); see also Clough Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. Main Line Corp., 313 F. App’x 208, 211 (11th Cir. 2008) (“The later drafting of the written settlement agreement 'may have been a condition of the performance but it was not an act necessary for the parties to reach an agreement to settle."); Calderon v. Springs Landscape & Maint., Inc., No. 17-22869-CIV, 2018 WL 5098976, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 6444227 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2018).

For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons discussed on the record at the conclusion of the October 9, 2024 settlement conference, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: