Gavric v. Regal Automotive Group, Inc., 8:20-cv-02978

Plaintiff Spaso Gavric, a former car salesman, sued Regal Automotive Group alleging unpaid compensation; claims included Count I (FLSA minimum-wage), Count II (Florida Minimum Wage Act), and state common-law commission/wage claims (Counts III–V).
Three opt-in plaintiffs later joined but were directed to arbitrate; the case proceeded through discovery and mediation to an impasse.
In March 2022 the parties informed the court they reached a settlement in principle and filed a Joint Motion to dismiss Count I (FLSA claim); they executed a written Agreement resolving Counts II–V but expressly excluded Count I from that Agreement.
Parties contend the state minimum-wage settlement (Counts II–V) effectively resolves any FLSA claim, that little or no FLSA recovery remains, and therefore dismissal of Count I is appropriate.
The court determined Lynn’s Food requires judicial scrutiny of FLSA settlements and found the unsubmitted Agreement likely "contaminates" the FLSA resolution (because Count II is also a minimum-wage claim); the court therefore deferred ruling and ordered the parties to submit the written settlement by April 8, 2022.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may dismiss the FLSA claim based on the parties' joint motion	Gavric seeks dismissal because FLSA damages are small and risks of litigation outweigh benefits	Regal concurs; both say state settlement de facto precludes FLSA recovery and no FLSA funds are allocated	Court deferred ruling; required settlement submission for review under Lynn's Food before dismissing Count I
Whether the parties may withhold the non-FLSA settlement from the court	Parties contend non-FLSA settlement need not be filed and does not require court approval	Same: confidentiality and separate treatment warranted	Court held non-FLSA agreement may not be kept secret if it affects FLSA claim; directed submission because terms appear to "contaminate" FLSA resolution
Whether absence of funds allocated to the FLSA claim obviates judicial scrutiny	Plaintiff argues no compromise exists because no money was paid for Count I	Defendant likewise argues no monies will be owed under FLSA given state settlement	Court rejected that position; required information and review to prevent an end-run around FLSA protections

Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) (district courts must scrutinize and approve FLSA settlements)
Goldsby v. Renosol Seating, LLC, 294 F.R.D. 649 (S.D. Ala. 2013) (courts may require additional information about plaintiff’s decision to dismiss FLSA claims)