Trustees of Local 371 United Food and Commercial Workers Union Amalgamated Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Whitney Manor Operating Company, LLC

Filing 23

ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached, Plaintiffs' 22 unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment is GRANTED. In light of this disposition, the 21 motion is DENIED as moot. The Clerk's Office is directed to enter a judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of $59,967.05.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/5/2018. (Barclay, Michael)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

TRUSTEES OF LOCAL 371 UNITED
FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS
UNION AMALGAMATED WELFARE
TRUST FUND and LOCAL
371 UNITED FOOD AND
COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION,

Civil Action
No. 3:17-cv1897(MPS)

Plaintiffs,
v.
WHITNEY MANOR
OPERATING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs Trustees of Local 371 Amalgamated Welfare Trust Fund and Local 371
United Food and Commercial Workers Union (collectively “Plaintiffs”) have moved under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 58 for entry of judgment in the amount of $59,967.05 against defendant
Whitney Manor Operating Company LLC (“Whitney Manor”) in accordance with the parties’
Stipulation of Judgment. (ECF No. 22.) Because the stipulation of dismissal, which was
approved by the Court, provides that this Court retains jurisdiction, I have jurisdiction to grant
the Plaintiffs’ motion. (See ECF No. 17 at ¶ 8; ECF No. 19.)
Plaintiffs brought this action against Whitney Manor on November 13, 2017, alleging
breach of a collective bargaining agreement in violation of ERISA and the LMRA. (ECF No.
1.) On April 10, 2018, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement (the “Settlement
Stipulation”), which this Court approved and so ordered on April 12, 2018. (ECF Nos. 17,
19.) As noted, the Settlement Stipulation provides that this Court retains jurisdiction. (ECF
No. 17 at ¶ 8.) In connection with the Settlement Stipulation, Whitney Manor executed a
Stipulation for Judgment (the “Judgment Stipulation”) agreeing to judgment against it in the
1

amount of $189,031.00, less any payments received by plaintiffs prior to entry of the
judgment. (ECF No. 20.) This stipulation was held in escrow until August 8, 2011, when
plaintiffs filed it on the docket. (Id.) The same day, plaintiffs filed a motion claiming that
Whitney Manor had breached the Settlement Stipulation and sought entry of the unpaid part
of the judgment, or $59,967.05. (ECF No. 22.) Whitney Manor has not filed a response or
given any reason why the Settlement Stipulation should not be enforced.
A settlement agreement is a contract that “[o]nce entered into . . . is binding and
conclusive.” Powell v. Omnicon, 497 F.3d 124, 128 (2d Cir. 2007). “A district court has the
power to enforce summarily, on motion, a settlement agreement reached in a case that was
pending before it.” Meetings & Expositions Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 490 F.2d 714, 717 (2d Cir.
1974) (citation omitted). “Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly
cast aside.” BCM Development, LLC v. Oprandy, No. 12–573–cv, 2013 WL 174102, at *1
(2d Cir. Jan. 17, 2013) (summary order) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake
or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during
litigation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Settlement Stipulation agreed to by the parties here is clear. It provides that
plaintiffs’ claims against Whitney Manor would be resolved in exchange for, inter alia,
$189,031 plus counsel fees of $10,000. (ECF No. 17 at ¶¶ 1, 4.) Whitney Manor agreed to
make monthly payments of the settlement amount and counsel fees according to a specific
schedule through August 2018. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4.) The Settlement Stipulation further provided
that Whitney Manor would provide an executed stipulation of judgment for the entire
$189,031 (the Judgment Stipulation) to be held in escrow. (Id. at ¶ 6.) If Whitney Manor

2

defaulted on its monthly payments and failed to timely cure following written notice of the
default, the Settlement Stipulation provided that plaintiffs would be “entitled to enter
judgment against Whitney Manor in the amount of all outstanding payments then due and
owing under this Agreement, plus liquidated damages representing ten (10%) percent of the
total amount then due and owing under th[e] Agreement.” (Id.) In the Judgment Stipulation,
Whitney Manor “stipulate[d] that judgment shall enter against Whitney Manor and in favor
of the Plaintiffs in the amount of $189,031.00, less any payments received by Plaintiffs from
Whitney Manor in this case prior to the entry of such judgment, which shall be determined at
the time for filing judgment . . . .” (ECF No. 20.)
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Whitney Manor breached the Settlement Stipulation.
Specifically, according to plaintiffs’ declaration, defendants failed to make the July 2018
settlement payment for $24,757.75 and the July 2018 counsel fee payment for $2,500. (ECF
No. 22-2, Declaration of John G. Radshaw (“Radshaw Decl.”) at ¶ 6; ECF No. 17 at ¶¶ 2, 4.)
Plaintiff’s counsel gave notice to Whitney Manor’s counsel to cure the default, and Whitney
Manor failed to timely cure.1 (Radshaw Decl. at ¶ 8.) Accordingly, plaintiffs became
“entitled to enter judgment against Whitney Manor in the amount of all outstanding payments
then due and owing under th[e] Agreement, plus liquidated damages representing ten (10%)
percent of the total amount then due and owing under this Agreement.” (ECF No. 17 at ¶ 6.)
Plaintiffs then filed the Stipulated Judgment with the Court on August 10, 2018, in which
Whitney Manor agreed that judgment would enter against it in the amount of $189,031.00,
less any payments received at the time of filing the judgment. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiffs

1

I assume that the longer of the two notice provisions, the 10-day provision, would apply
to failure to make payments of counsel fees specified in paragraph 4 of the Settlement
Stipulation, but both periods have long since lapsed without cure. (ECF No. 17 at ¶ 6.)
3

indicate that the remaining amount unpaid at this time was (i) the July 2018 payment of
$24,757.75; (ii) the July 2018 counsel fee payment of $2,500; (iii) the August 2018 payment
of $24,757.75; and (iv) the August 2018 counsel payment of $2,500. (Radshaw Decl. at ¶
11.) Each of these payments are clearly mandatory under paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Settlement
Stipulation. (ECF No. 17 at ¶¶ 2, 4.) These payments total $54,515.50, and because the
Settlement Stipulation further entitles plaintiffs to liquidated damages of 10% of that amount,
or $5,451.55 (ECF No. 17 at ¶ 6), the Court agrees that the total amount due under the
Settlement Stipulation is $59,967.05.
Accordingly, based on the Settlement Stipulation (ECF No. 17) and the Judgment
Stipulation (ECF No. 20), I GRANT Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment
(ECF No. 22).2 I direct the Clerk’s Office to enter a judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against
Defendant in the amount of $59,967.05.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

Hartford, Connecticut
October 5, 2018

2

As ECF No. 22 is a corrected motion, the non-corrected motion is DENIED as moot.
(ECF No. 21)
4