Danzas Corporation dba DHL Global Forwarding v. Technology

Background

Danzas Corporation dba DHL Global Forwarding and Radiz Group International, Inc. dba DHL Global Forwarding (collectively, “DHL”) alleged that they performed 35 deliveries for Solarjuice Technology, Inc., Solarjuice American Inc., and Solar4America Technology Inc. dba Solarjuice Technology Inc. (collectively, “Solarjuice”), and that Solarjuice failed to pay. After Solarjuice failed to appear, the Clerk entered default.

The parties then entered a settlement agreement. They signed a separate stipulation providing for entry of judgment if Solarjuice defaulted on the settlement payments. The agreement divided the settlement amount into eight installments, with the first due March 10, 2025. It gave Solarjuice a five-business-day period to cure a missed payment after receiving notice. If Solarjuice did not cure the default, the agreement allowed judgment for $284,421.95, plus attorney’s fees and costs for enforcement.

DHL stated that the March 10 payment was not made. DHL notified Solarjuice on March 20 and sent a follow-up reminder on March 26. The cure period expired on March 27, and Solarjuice did not pay, appear, or respond to DHL’s motion. DHL also requested $1,980 in attorney’s fees and asked to withdraw its earlier notice of settlement.

Legal standard and analysis

The court explained that a federal court may summarily enforce a settlement agreement in a pending case and may enter a stipulated judgment according to the settlement’s terms. The court stated that the merits of the underlying dispute become inconsequential when the court is enforcing the settlement.

The court found that DHL provided evidence of Solarjuice’s default and that the agreed grace periods had expired. Because the settlement expressly provided for judgment after such a default, the court concluded that DHL was entitled to judgment under the agreement. The court also found the $1,980 fee request reasonable, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2), and authorized by the settlement terms.

Disposition

The court ordered reassignment of the case to a district judge. Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen recommended that the district judge withdraw the notice of settlement, grant DHL’s motion for entry of stipulated judgment, and enter the proposed judgment. The opinion is a report and recommendation; the text provided does not state that the district judge had yet adopted it or entered the judgment.