Santana v. STCR Acquisition, LLC

Filing 67

ORDER denying 60 Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case with Good Cause. Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 61 , and Amended Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents 62 is DENI ED as moot. Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents 66 is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all motions, enter judgment dismissing the case, and close the file.Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 9/20/2016. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EDWARD SANTANA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-30-FtM-38CM

STCR ACQUISITION, LLC,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Edward Santana’s Motion to
Reopen Case with Good Cause (Doc. #60) filed on August 30, 2016. Defendant STCR
Acquisition, LLC (“STCR”) filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #64) to Santana’s Motion
to Reopen on September 14, 2016. The matter is ripe for review.
BACKGROUND
This matter is rooted in Santana’s allegations of employment discrimination.
Specifically, Santana applied for a hostess position with STCR in November of 2015, but
was not selected for employment. (Doc. #17 at 6). Santana’s First Amended Complaint
alleges that an STCR representative explained the hiring decision by stating that they
“mostly only hire young female hostesses in or around their teens or [twenties].” (Doc.
#17 at 8). Santana also alleges the representative stated that STCR generally did “not

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their
websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The
Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

hire males for the position of hostess due to the preferences of [its] owner and human
resource[s] department . . . .” (Doc. #17 at 8-9).
On August 1, 2016, a Mediation Report (Doc. #57) was filed, indicating that the
parties had resolved all claims asserted in this action. Thereafter, on August 8, 2016, the
Court issued an Order of Dismissal (Doc. #59) without prejudice, allowing any party to
move to reopen the case upon a showing of good cause by September 7, 2016.
On August 30, 2016, Santana filed a Motion to Reopen Case with Good Cause
(Doc. #60), stating that although the Parties had come to a settlement agreement, STCR
had breached the terms of the settlement agreement. That same day, Santana also filed
a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. #61), and an Amended Motion to
Compel Responsive Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents. (Doc.
#62).
For its part, although STCR responded in opposition to Santana’s Motion to
Reopen, and has responded to Santana’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, it
does not dispute the terms of the settlement or oppose the matter being reopened for the
sole purpose of addressing Santana’s arguments as to the enforcement of the parties’
settlement agreement. (Docs. #64 at 3, #65 at 2).
DISCUSSION
Upon review of the mediation report, wherein it was indicated that the parties had
settled this matter (Doc. #57), the Court directed the Clerk of Courts to administratively
close the case. (Doc. #59). This was done pursuant to Local Rule 3.08(b), which states:
When notified that a case has been settled and for purposes
of administratively closing the file, the Court may order that a
case be dismissed subject to the right of any party to move
the Court within sixty (60) days thereafter (or within such other

2

period of time as the Court may specify) for the purpose of
entering a stipulated form of final order or judgment; or, on
good cause shown, to reopen the case for further
proceedings.
Despite Santana’s argument, and STCR’s lack of opposition to reopening the case
for purposes limited to enforcement of the settlement, it is well established that
“[e]nforcement of [a] settlement agreement . . . whether through award of damages or
decree of specific performance, is more than just a continuation or renewal of the
dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994). More specifically, absent an express prior
reservation of authority, the Court does not have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement
agreement. See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1281 (11th Cir.
2012).
The plain language of Santana’s motions leaves no doubt that the true intent
behind moving to reopen the case is to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement
agreement through a breach of contract analysis. In light of Kokkonen, and because the
parties did not previously reserve authority for the Court to adjudicate claims stemming
from attempts to enforce their settlement agreement, reopening this case would be
improper, as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the parties’ breach of contract
claims. 511 U.S. at 382. That said, this Order does not leave the parties without a
remedy. “Settlement agreements are contracts and thus may be adjudicated in courts
with jurisdiction over the contract.” Anago, 677 F. 3d at 1281. As such, the parties are
free to seek redress in a more proper forum.

3

Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case with Good Cause (Doc. #60) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. #61), and Amended
Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to Interrogatories and Production of
Documents (Doc. #62) is DENIED as moot.
3. Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Amended
Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to Interrogatories and Production of
Documents (Doc. #66) is DENIED as moot.
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all motions, enter judgment dismissing
the case, and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 19th day of September, 2016.

Copies: All Parties of Record

4