Velasquez v. Shogy Marketplace Corporation
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-02745
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Velasquez v. Shogy Marketplace, Judge Engelmayer ordered judgment against defendants after they failed to pay $25,220 required by a settlement.
Luis Velasquez obtained an ordered judgment against Shogy Marketplace Corporation and Hafthadyn Saleh for the settlement payment addressed in the order, with reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs also referenced. The defendants were subject to the judgment and had previously been held in contempt for failing to comply with the court’s orders.
What happened
In Velasquez v. Shogy Marketplace Corporation, the court had previously enforced a settlement requiring Shogy Marketplace Corporation and Hafthadyn Saleh to pay Luis Velasquez $25,220. Velasquez later reported that the defendants had not paid or responded to communications.
The court had held the defendants in contempt for failing to comply with its orders, and their lawyer was allowed to withdraw. Velasquez then asked for a judgment against the defendants or, alternatively, coercive and criminal sanctions.
Judge Paul Engelmayer granted the motion to the extent it sought a damages award. He directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment against the defendants for the payment required by the settlement, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and closed the motion.
The detailed version
- Velasquez v. Shogy Marketplace Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-02745
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 28, 2025
Background
On March 7, 2025, the court granted Luis Velasquez’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement and ordered Shogy Marketplace Corporation and Hafthadyn Saleh to pay him $25,220 promptly. Velasquez later notified the court that the defendants had not made the payment or responded to communications.
The court ordered the defendants, through counsel, to explain why they should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the court’s orders. Their counsel moved to withdraw because the defendants had not responded to counsel’s outreach. On April 16, 2025, the court held the defendants in contempt for failing to participate and comply with its orders, including the orders enforcing the settlement. The court separately granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Motion and ruling
Velasquez’s May 20, 2025 motion requested either a judgment against the defendants for $25,220 or, alternatively, coercive and criminal sanctions. The court stated that it had retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. It reaffirmed that the settlement was enforceable and that the defendants had clearly breached it by failing to pay Velasquez $25,220, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
The court granted the motion to the extent it sought entry of a damages award. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment against the defendants in that amount for failing to satisfy their payment obligations and directed that the motion at Docket 51 be closed. The opinion does not specify a dollar amount for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.