Wilson v. Marlboro Pizza, LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
(SOUTHERN DIVISION)
DONALD WILSON, et al., 	*
Plaintiffs, 	*
v. 	* 	Civil Case No. 8:22-cv-01465-AAQ
MARLBORO PLAZA, LLC, et al., 	*
Defendants. 	*
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is a dispute over unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
§§ 201-219. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Consent Motion for Approval of Settlement of
the dispute between the parties pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216. 	ECF No. 100. 	For the reasons
discussed below, the Motion for Approval of the Settlement shall be granted, and the case shall be
closed.
BACKGROUND
The facts of this case, as alleged, are laid out in detail in this Court’s Memorandum Opinion
denying Defendants Marlboro Pizza, LLC’s, and Malcolm Carter’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No.
13. In short, “Plaintiff Donald Wilson worked as a delivery driver at a Domino’s store owned by
Defendants in Seat Pleasant, Maryland.” Id. at 1. On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on
behalf of himself, and others similarly situated, alleging that Defendants improperly reimbursed
them for their vehicle expenses, such that their wages fell below the applicable minimum wage, in
violation of the FLSA. ECF No. 1. On April 27, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to
dismiss, rejecting Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiffs had not properly plead their claim and that,
Case 8:22-cv-01465-AAQ Document 102 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 8

2
accepting the allegations in the Complaint as true, Defendants were not Plaintiffs’ employers. ECF
No. 13, at 4-6.
On June 25, 2025, the parties filed a Status Report addressing the parties’ efforts to resolve
the case. ECF No. 89. According to the Report, the parties set forth a schedule for the exchange
of data, as well as a settlement demand. Id. On November 21, 2025, the parties participated in a
mediation to settle the case. ECF No. 93. Although the parties were not able to resolve the case
on that day, they continued to discuss whether they could settle the case. Id. While this process
unfolded, Plaintiffs issued discovery requests to Defendants. Id. On December 10, 2025, the case
was referred to the undersigned for all further proceedings. ECF No. 94.
On December 19, 2025, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement with the Court, stating that
the parties had reached an agreement in principle. ECF No. 96. On January 21, 2026, the Court
issued an Order requiring Plaintiffs to submit a motion for approval of the settlement or status
report no later than February 10, 2026. ECF No. 99. On February 11, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the
Motion presently before the Court, to which Defendant has consented. ECF No. 100.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When evaluating settlement agreements for approval under the FLSA, courts must ensure
that a settlement “reflects a ‘reasonable compromise of disputed issues’ rather than ‘a mere waiver
of statutory rights brought about by an employer’s overreaching.’” Saman v. LBDP, Inc., No. DKC
12-1083, 2013 WL 2949047, at *2 (D. Md. June 13, 2013) (quoting Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v.
United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 1982)).
In making such a determination, district courts in the Fourth Circuit typically “employ the
considerations set forth by the Eleventh Circuit in Lynn’s Food Stores,” which holds that a “FLSA
settlement generally should be approved if it reflects ‘a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona
Case 8:22-cv-01465-AAQ Document 102 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 8

3
fide dispute over FLSA provisions.’” Id. at *3 (quoting Lynn’s Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1355). As
part of this assessment, courts must evaluate: (1) whether there are FLSA issues actually in dispute;
(2) whether the settlement is fair and reasonable in light of the relevant factors; and (3) whether
the attorneys’ fees, if included in the agreement, are reasonable. Id. at *3 (citing Lane v. Ko-Me,
LLC, No. 10-2261, 2011 WL 3880427, at *2-3 (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2011); Lomascolo v. Parsons
Brinckerhoff, Inc., No. 1:08cv1310 (AJT/JFA), 2009 WL 3094955, at *10 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28,
2009)).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs ask the Court to approve the proposed Settlement Agreement. Defendants do not
oppose the Motion. The Court finds that approval is proper, as the Settlement Agreement reflects
a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute between the parties.
A. There is a Bona Fide Dispute Between the Parties.
To determine “whether a bona fide dispute exists as to a defendant’s liability under the
FLSA,” the Court should “examine the pleadings in the case, along with the representations and
recitals in the proposed settlement agreement.” Duprey v. Scotts Co., 30 F. Supp. 3d 404, 408 (D.
Md. 2014) (citing Lomascolo, 2009 WL 3094955, at *16–17). “Disagreements over rates of pay
and hours worked can constitute bona fide disputes over a defendant’s liability.” 	Fernandez v.
Washington Hosp. Servs., LLC, No. 8:23-cv-839-AAQ, 2023 WL 4627422, at *2 (D. Md. July 19,
2023); see Duprey, 30 F. Supp. 3d at 408 (finding a bona fide dispute where the “parties disagree[d]
about Duprey’s rate of pay and hours worked”).
In the Motion, Plaintiffs state that the proposed settlement resolves a bona fide dispute
because Defendants and Plaintiffs disagree as to whether Defendants properly paid Plaintiffs a
minimum wage. ECF No. 101, at 3. Moreover, Defendants contest whether liquidated damages
Case 8:22-cv-01465-AAQ Document 102 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 8

4
are appropriate. 	Id. at 2. Accordingly, a bona fide dispute exists between the parties under the
FLSA.
B. The Settlement Agreement is Fair and Reasonable.
In assessing whether a settlement is fair and reasonable, the Court should evaluate the
following six factors:
(1) [T]he extent of discovery that has taken place; (2) the stage of
the proceedings, including the complexity, expense and likely
duration of the litigation; (3) the absence of fraud or collusion in the
settlement; (4) the experience of counsel who have represented the
plaintiffs; (5) the opinions of . . . counsel . . . ; and (6) the probability
of plaintiffs’ success on the merits and the amount of the settlement
in relation to the potential recovery.
Saman, 2013 WL 2949047, at *3 (second omission in original) (quoting Lomascolo, 2009 WL
3094955, at *10).
The first factor asks courts to consider the extent to which discovery has taken place. When
looking at this factor, courts assess whether the parties have “had adequate time to conduct
sufficient discovery to ‘fairly evaluate the liability and financial aspects of [the] case.’”
Lomascolo, 2009 WL 3094955, at *11 (alteration in original) (quoting In re A.H. Robins Co. v.
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (In re A.H. Robins Co.), 88 B.R. 755, 760 (E.D. Va. 1988)).
The parties represent that they spent several months negotiating and providing and
reviewing information prior to mediation. ECF No. 101, at 3-4. This process is documented in
the parties’ multiple status reports to the Court which discuss the parties’ efforts to define the scope
of discovery, exchange information, and then shape their settlement demands and responses based
on the discovery. ECF Nos. 89, 91, and 93. As such, the first factor weighs in favor of approving
the Settlement Agreement.
Case 8:22-cv-01465-AAQ Document 102 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 8

5
The second factor looks to the current stage of the proceedings. 	Settlements can be fair
where proceeding further would be difficult and costly, and the parties prefer to end proceedings
before significant investment in litigation. See, e.g., Black v. Reviera Enters., Inc., No. DLB-19-
201, 2020 WL 6544820, at *2 (D. Md. Nov. 6, 2020) (holding that a settlement agreement was fair
and reasonable where parties recognized remaining discovery would require significant investment
of time, effort, and financial resources); Saman, 2013 WL 2949047, at *4 (finding that the parties’
representation that they chose to settle “to avoid the costs of formal discovery, dispositive motions,
and a possible trial” supported a finding that the settlement agreement was fair and reasonable).
As Plaintiffs note, the next step in the case would likely involve litigation over whether the case
could proceed as a class action and/or filing a dispositive motion. ECF No. 101, at 4. As a result
of the case’s size, the litigation could prove costly and time consuming. 	Id. 	Given the parties’
joint preference to terminate proceedings early rather than bear the risks and costs of further
litigation, this factor weighs in favor of approving the Settlement Agreement.
The third factor assesses whether there has been fraud or collusion in the formation of the
settlement. There are no facts before the Court that suggest either, allowing the “presumption that
no fraud or collusion occurred between counsel[.]” Lomascolo, 2009 WL 3094955, at *12. Rather,
the settlement was reached as the result of arms-length negotiation involving an experienced
mediator. ECF No. 101, at 5. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approving the Settlement
Agreement.
Under the fourth factor, courts look to the experience of counsel. Generally, where counsel
is well-versed in the underlying law, courts presume that clients have been appropriately advised
on the merits and challenges associated with settlement. See Hackett v. ADF Rest. Invs., 259 F.
Supp. 3d 360, 366 (D. Md. 2016) (finding a fair and reasonable settlement where counsel had
Case 8:22-cv-01465-AAQ Document 102 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 8

6
litigated numerous lawsuits involving wage and hour violations). Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel “ha[s]
served as counsel and class counsel for plaintiffs in dozens of wage-and-hour matters of this very
kind brought on behalf of classes of pizza delivery drivers including in federal courts throughout
the Fourth Circuit.” ECF No. 101, at 6. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs’ counsel is sufficiently
experienced in litigating similar matters, this factor weighs in favor of approving the Settlement
Agreement.
The fifth factor incorporates the opinions of counsel. Counsel’s opinion that the expense
and potential duration of litigation weighs in favor of early settlement lends credence to a proposed
settlement agreement. See Castro v. Early Learning Language Acads., LLC, No. CBD-18-2421,
2021 WL 915106, at *4 (D. Md. Mar. 9, 2021). According to the Motion, both counsel aver that
the settlement is fair and reasonable, given “that a jury would have to decide multiple factual issues
that would bear on Plaintiffs’ ultimate recovery—or lack thereof.” ECF No. 101, at 6-7. While
“counsel’s opinion and recommendation as to the fairness and reasonableness of a settlement is
not to be blindly followed,” Saman, 2013 WL 2949047, at *5 (quoting Lomascolo, 2009 WL
3094955, at *12), their representations in this case weigh in favor of approving the Settlement
Agreement.
For the same reason, the sixth factor—the probability of Plaintiff’s success and the
relationship between the amount of the settlement and the potential recovery—weighs in favor of
approving the Settlement Agreement. 	Plaintiffs will recover 40% of their maximum recovery
under the settlement. ECF No. 101, at 8. While less than some settlements, as the parties note,
were the case to proceed to trial, Plaintiffs may have to rely on their own estimates of how much
they drove to justify their damages calculations. ECF No. 101, at 7. Where plaintiffs have faced
similar risks, this Court has found similar settlements to be fair and reasonable. See Strother v. OS
Case 8:22-cv-01465-AAQ Document 102 Filed 02/19/26 Page 6 of 8

7
Restaurant Servs., LLC, No. 8:22-cv-0845-AAQ, 2023 WL 1769733, at *4 (D. Md. Feb. 3, 2023)
(approving settlement where plaintiff received 30% of claimed damages).
Upon consideration of the relevant factors, the Court finds the Settlement Agreement to be
fair and reasonable.
C. The Settlement Agreement Awards Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees.
The 	Settlement Agreement 	must 	also 	contain 	reasonable 	provisions 	for 	allocating
attorneys’ fees and costs. Duprey, 30 F. Supp. 3d at 411. Here, the parties have decided upon an
award of $64,287.29 in attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 101, at 8.
“In assessing the reasonableness of the fee, courts typically refer to the principles of the
traditional lodestar method as a guide[.]” Hackett, 259 F. Supp. 3d at 367. The lodestar approach
multiplies “the number of hours reasonably expended . . . by a reasonable hourly rate” to achieve
“an objective basis on which to make an initial estimate of the value of a lawyer’s services.”
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Under the lodestar approach, an hourly rate “is
reasonable if it is ‘in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers
of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.’” 	Duprey, 30 F. Supp. 3d at 412
(quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 890 n.11 (1984)). 	This Court maintains guidelines
regarding appropriate hourly rates in Appendix B to its Local Rules. D. Md. Local R. App. B(3).
Of the total settlement amount for attorneys’ fees and costs, $50,000 is allocated to fees,
with the remaining portion devoted to costs. 	ECF No. 101, at 8. 	Plaintiffs’ counsel calculated
their fee request by first determining their lodestar amount of $68,175.00 and then, as part of the
settlement compromise, reducing that figure by $18,175.00. ECF No. 100-2, at 5. Additionally,
Plaintiffs’ counsel have not billed for any time staff or associates devoted to the case. Id. at 4.
Case 8:22-cv-01465-AAQ Document 102 Filed 02/19/26 Page 7 of 8

8
According to their declaration, Plaintiffs’ counsel have spent more than ninety hours
working on this case. Id. 	Further, this does not account for at least thirty additional hours that
they will likely devote to distribution of the settlement to the class. In the Motion, Plaintiffs assert,
and the Court agrees, this total number of hours is reasonable given Plaintiffs’ counsel’s work
“investigating the facts, reviewing documents and data, analyzing Defendants’ data disclosures,
conferring with Defendants’ various counsel, reviewing and revising a computerized damages
model, drafting a mediation statement, reviewing approval papers, researching and drafting a
motion for settlement approval, seeking Court approval of the settlement, fees and costs.” ECF
No. 100-2, at 4.
Regarding hourly rates, Plaintiffs’ counsel base their lodestar on an hourly rate of $750 per
hour. Id. at 4. This Court has found similar rates to be reasonable in FLSA settlements when all
parties have agreed to them. See, e.g., Jose Ramos v. Digit. Prosthodontics, LLC, et al., No. 8:25-
2052-CDA, 2025 WL 3523116, at *5 (D. Md. Dec. 8, 2025) (approving a billing rate of $695 per
hour). Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement awards reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Settlement, ECF No. 100,
shall be granted. The Court shall close the case.
So ordered.
Date: 	February 19, 2026 	_________/s/______________
Ajmel A. Quereshi
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 8:22-cv-01465-AAQ Document 102 Filed 02/19/26 Page 8 of 8