Hmong College Prep Academy v. Woodstock Capital, LLC; Clark Reiner
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:21-cv-01721
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Hmong College Prep Academy v. Woodstock Capital, Magistrate Judge Micko recommends granting HCPA's unopposed motion to enforce a settlement agreement Defendants allegedly breached.
Parties to court-ordered or negotiated settlement agreements, particularly defendants who have not yet complied with payment terms of a settlement, and plaintiffs seeking to enforce those terms in federal court.
What happened
In Hmong College Prep Academy v. Woodstock Capital, LLC and Clark Reiner (Case No. 21-cv-1721), Hmong College Prep Academy ('HCPA') brought a lawsuit against Woodstock Capital, LLC and Clark Reiner. In November 2024, the parties signed a written settlement agreement to resolve the dispute, but HCPA alleges the Defendants failed to make the payment required under Section 1 of that agreement.
HCPA filed a motion asking the court to force the Defendants to follow through on the settlement. Notably, Defendants did not oppose the motion and agreed that a judgment could be entered based on HCPA's proposed order. Because there were no disputed facts, the court found no evidentiary hearing was necessary, relying on its authority to enforce settlement agreements and treating the settlement as a binding contract.
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on November 6, 2025, recommending that the motion be granted. Specifically, the recommendation calls for Defendants to make the required settlement payment within five business days of the order being issued, and for a judgment to be entered in HCPA's favor in the amount of that payment. This is a recommendation to the District Court judge, not a final order; the parties have 14 days to file written objections.
The detailed version
- Hmong College Prep Academy v. Woodstock Capital, LLC; Clark Reiner · No. 0:21-cv-01721
- Paul Magnuson
- Nov. 6, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Hmong College Prep Academy ('HCPA') filed this lawsuit against Defendants Woodstock Capital, LLC and Clark Reiner. In November 2024, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement intended to resolve all of HCPA's claims. HCPA alleges that Defendants failed to meet their payment obligation under Section 1 of that agreement, prompting HCPA to file an unopposed Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. 90).
Procedural Posture
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Micko for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1. A Report and Recommendation is not itself a final order — it is a magistrate judge's proposed decision that must be reviewed and adopted (or rejected) by the assigned District Court judge. Defendants filed a response (Doc. 95) stating they do not oppose the motion and agree to entry of judgment based on HCPA's proposed order.
Legal Analysis
The court cited its inherent power to enforce settlement agreements in cases pending before it, drawing on Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 532 F. Supp. 923, 934 (D. Minn. 1982). It also noted that a settlement agreement functions as a contract, subject to standard contract interpretation and enforcement rules, citing Goddard, Inc. v. Henry's Foods, Inc., 291 F. Supp. 2d 1021, 1028 (D. Minn. 2003).
Because the parties did not dispute that a written settlement agreement was signed and executed, and because there were no disagreements of fact, the court found that the settlement could be summarily enforced — meaning without a formal evidentiary hearing where witnesses testify.
Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Micko recommended that:
- HCPA's motion to enforce be granted;
- Defendants Woodstock Capital, LLC and Clark Reiner be ordered to perform their payment obligation under Section 1 of the Settlement Agreement within five business days of the order; and
- Judgment be entered for HCPA in the amount of the settlement payment required by Section 1 of the Settlement Agreement.
The opinion does not disclose the specific dollar amount of the required settlement payment.
Next Steps
Because this is a Report and Recommendation and not a final order, any party wishing to object must file specific written objections within 14 days of being served with a copy. The opposing party then has 14 days to respond to those objections. The matter then goes to the District Court judge (Judge Paul A. Magnuson, based on the 'PAM' designation in the case number) for a final ruling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.