Flores-Colin v. La Oaxaquena Restaurant Corp.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:18-cv-02966-SN
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Flores-Colin v. La Oaxaquena, Judge Netburn denied enforcement because the court lacked jurisdiction over the settlement.
Jose Flores-Colin’s attempt to enforce the settlement was unsuccessful in federal court. La Oaxaquena Restaurant Corp. and Elizabeth Pizarro were not required to pay the settlement through this federal enforcement motion, and the case remains closed.
What happened
In Flores-Colin v. La Oaxaquena Restaurant Corp., Jose Flores-Colin asked the court to enforce a settlement of his wage claims and enter judgment against La Oaxaquena Restaurant Corp. and Elizabeth Pizarro. The settlement required 19 payments totaling $20,000, but a payment was missed after the seventh installment.
The court said it lacked power to enforce the settlement because its earlier order approving the agreement and closing the case did not expressly keep enforcement authority or include the settlement’s terms. The parties’ agreement to the court’s jurisdiction did not change that result. The opinion said Flores-Colin may seek enforcement in a state court with authority to hear the matter.
Judge Sarah Netburn denied Flores-Colin’s motion to enforce the settlement and directed the clerk to terminate the motion; the case remains closed.
The detailed version
- Flores-Colin v. La Oaxaquena Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-02966-SN
- Sarah Netburn
- May 10, 2022
Background
Jose Flores-Colin sued La Oaxaquena Restaurant Corp., Elizabeth Pizarro, and Antonio Pizarro under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. He alleged that, while working as a food delivery worker and porter, he was not paid proper minimum wages or overtime, was not given written wage statements, and had tips withheld from credit-card delivery orders.
The parties reached a settlement for $20,000. The agreement called for an initial payment of $4,000 followed by 18 monthly payments of $888.89. If the defendants defaulted, the remaining amount and $5,000 in liquidated damages would become due after notice and an opportunity to cure. The agreement also allowed Flores-Colin to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in enforcing the payment obligations in court.
The court reviewed and approved the settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House and dismissed the action with prejudice. The defendants later failed to make the seventh installment payment. After Flores-Colin agreed to suspend payments during the COVID-19 pandemic and later sought to restart them, the parties were unable to resolve the default. Flores-Colin then moved to enforce the settlement and enter judgment against La Oaxaquena and Elizabeth Pizarro.
Jurisdiction
The court explained that enforcing a settlement is generally a contract dispute governed by state law. A federal court may enforce a settlement after closing a case only if its dismissal order either expressly keeps jurisdiction over enforcement or incorporates the settlement’s terms into the order. The court’s awareness of, and approval of, a settlement is not enough by itself.
The court’s approval order did neither. Although the parties’ proposed dismissal document contained language that would have supported federal enforcement jurisdiction, that language reflected the parties’ position rather than the court’s order. The parties’ consent to the court’s personal or subject-matter jurisdiction also could not create subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal power to hear the dispute.
Ruling
The court held that it could not enforce the settlement for lack of jurisdiction. It therefore DENIED Flores-Colin’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 41. The case remains closed. The opinion stated that Flores-Colin may pursue enforcement in a state court with appropriate jurisdiction.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.