Osorio v. DM Avo, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 1:25-CV-24840-LEIBOWITZ/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
JOSE OSORIO,
Plaintiff,
v.
DM AVO, LLC and DILGAS MURAD,
Defendants.
________________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON JOINT MOTION FOR
APPROVAL OF FLSA SETTLEMENT AND TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
This cause comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA
Settlement and to Dismiss with Prejudice. 	DE 12. 	The Honorable David S. Leibowitz, United
States District Judge, referred the Joint Motion to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge
for a report and recommendation. DE 13. The Court has carefully considered the Joint Motion,
the supplement thereto [DE 15], and the record and is fully advised in the premises. The Court
RECOMMENDS that the Joint Motion [DE 12] be GRANTED.
Plaintiff Jose Osorio filed this lawsuit against his former employers, Defendants DM Avo,
LLC and Dilgas Murad, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for unpaid overtime wages.
DE 1. Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, but
no other potential plaintiffs have been involved in the lawsuit. 	The parties have now resolved
Plaintiff’s claim. 	Under the terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff will receive
$2,000 in overtime wages and $2,000 in liquidated damages. DE 12-1 at 2. Plaintiff’s counsel
will receive $6,000 for fees and costs. Id.
Case 1:25-cv-24840-DSL Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 1 of 4

2
A settlement resolving an FLSA claim must either be presented to the Secretary of Labor
or be scrutinized by a court for fairness. Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350,
1352–53 (11th Cir. 1982). 	In reviewing the fairness of a settlement of an FLSA claim, a court
determines whether the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.
Id. at 1355. The court considers factors such as (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 the plaintiff’s success
on the merits; (5) the range of possible recovery; and (6) the opinions of counsel. 	Johnson v.
Gonzo Mktg. Servs., LLC, No. 21-60775-CIV, 2021 WL 8363200, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2021)
(citing Leverso v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., Nat’l Ass’n, 18 F.3d 1527, 1530 n.6 (11th Cir. 1994)).
The parties address the Leverso factors in the Joint Motion. DE 12 at 4–6. To summarize,
the parties state that they are represented by counsel experienced in FLSA matters and that they
negotiated the settlement with no fraud or collusion. 	They settled after engaging in informal
discovery and investigation into the facts and the law. 	The parties continue to dispute several
issues, and they settled to avoid the inherent risks and substantial costs of continued litigation. The
expense of prolonged litigation could have exceeded the amount of the settlement. Counsel believe
that the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of Plaintiff’s claim.
The Court has considered the parties’ arguments and has conducted its own review of the
record. 	The case settled soon after Plaintiff filed it, such that settlement avoids the costs of
mediation, full discovery, and substantive motion practice. 	The parties had the assistance of
counsel in resolving the case, and the Court has no reason to suspect that the settlement is a product
of fraud or collusion. The Court concludes that application of the Leverso factors demonstrates
that the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.
Case 1:25-cv-24840-DSL Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 2 of 4

3
A court must evaluate the reasonableness of any attorney’s fees included as part of an
FLSA settlement agreement “to assure both that counsel is compensated adequately and that no
conflict of interest taints the amount the wronged employee recovers under [the] settlement
agreement.” 	Silva v. Miller, 307 F. App’x 349, 351 (11th Cir. 2009). 	Plaintiff’s counsel will
receive $6,000 for fees and costs under the settlement. DE 12-1 at 2. The parties state that they
negotiated this fee award separately from the award to Plaintiff and that the fee award did not
adversely affect Plaintiff’s recovery. DE 12 at 6–7; DE 15 at 1–2.
Counsel filed a copy of his billing statement for this case. DE 15-1. The billing statement
reflects total costs of $525 for the court filing fee and service of process fees. The billing statement
further reflects total fees of $7,830 incurred for 17.4 hours of work. 	Accepting counsel’s
representation that he spent 17.4 hours working on the case, the fee award compensates counsel at
a reasonable hourly rate. The Court concludes that the fee award is reasonable.
The Court has reviewed the remaining clauses of the Settlement Agreement, which include
various standard provisions. 	See generally DE 12-1. 	The Court concludes that the Settlement
Agreement is fair and reasonable in its entirety.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA
Settlement and to Dismiss with Prejudice [DE 12] be GRANTED and that the Settlement
Agreement [DE 12-1] be APPROVED. 	The Court further recommends that this case be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation,
any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). 	The parties are hereby notified that a failure to
timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on
Case 1:25-cv-24840-DSL Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 3 of 4

4
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation.
11th Cir. R. 3-1.
DONE AND SUBMITTED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 21st day of
January, 2026.
___________________________________
PANAYOTTA AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-24840-DSL Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 4 of 4