Armando Sapon Sapon v. Hanbat Restaurant, Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:18-cv-11457
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Carlos Armando Sapon Sapon v. Hanbat Restaurant, Judge Cave granted Plaintiffs’ motion and ordered a $35,000 judgment after Defendants defaulted on their settlement.
The ruling affected Carlos Armando Sapon Sapon and the other Plaintiffs, who obtained a $35,000 judgment, and Hanbat Restaurant, Inc. and Nack Gyeun Mun, against whom the judgment was entered.
What happened
Carlos Armando Sapon Sapon and the other Plaintiffs brought a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Hanbat Restaurant, Inc. and Nack Gyeun Mun. The parties settled, and the Court dismissed the case with prejudice while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Defendants signed a confession of judgment allowing a $35,000 judgment if they defaulted.
Plaintiffs said Defendants made no payments under the settlement, despite notice of default and a revised payment schedule. Defendants did not respond to Plaintiffs’ motion seeking judgment. Plaintiffs asked the Court to enforce the settlement and enter judgment for $35,000.
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted Plaintiffs’ motion. She found that the Court could enforce the settlement and enter the confession of judgment, and ordered the Clerk to enter judgment for Plaintiffs in the amount of $35,000.
The detailed version
- Armando Sapon Sapon v. Hanbat Restaurant, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-11457
- Sarah Cave
- Feb. 16, 2021
Background
This was a wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave. On November 5, 2019, the Court approved their settlement agreement. On November 13, 2019, the action was dismissed with prejudice. The settlement agreement provided that the Court would retain jurisdiction to enforce it.
The Defendants also signed an affidavit confessing judgment. Under that document, if they defaulted on the settlement agreement, they authorized entry of judgment against them for $35,000, less any payments made. Plaintiffs moved for judgment after asserting that Defendants had made no payments, even after receiving notice of default and agreeing to a revised payment schedule. The Court ordered Defendants to respond, but they did not do so.
Court’s analysis
The Court explained that a federal court may enforce a settlement when the dismissal order makes the parties’ settlement obligations part of the court’s order, including by expressly retaining jurisdiction. Because this Court had approved the settlement and retained jurisdiction to enforce it, it had authority to enforce the agreement.
The Court also concluded that it could enter the confession of judgment because subject-matter jurisdiction existed and the confession had been made knowingly and voluntarily. It found that the confession contained the information required by New York law. Although the confession authorized entry in New York State Supreme Court, the settlement agreement allowed this Court to retain jurisdiction over enforcement proceedings, so the confession could be entered in this Court. The Court further found that filing the motion and its attachments on the electronic docket provided effective notice to Defendants.
The Court found ample reason to enter a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. It determined that Defendants were plainly in default because they failed to make the required settlement payments and failed to respond to the motion. Their default delayed Plaintiffs’ recovery and caused Plaintiffs to incur additional attorneys’ fees.
Ruling
Judge Sarah L. Cave GRANTED Plaintiffs’ motion. The Clerk of Court was requested to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $35,000.00.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.