Amaya Diaz v. Pho Eatery, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/11/2019. (tds, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JOSE SANTOS AMAYA DIAZ
Civil Action No. DKC 17-02968
PHO EATERY, INC. et al.
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”) case is the motion to enforce settlement
agreement filed by Plaintiff Jose Santos Amaya Diaz.
The issues have been briefed, and the court now rules, no
hearing being deemed necessary.
Local Rule 105.6.
following reasons, the motion to enforce the settlement agreement
will be granted in part.
Roughly two years ago, Plaintiff Jose Amaya Diaz sued Pho
Eatery, Inc. and Tim Do for, among other things, their violations
(ECF No. 1).
The parties reached a settlement, and on
May 14, 2019, this court approved that settlement (ECF No. 39) and
issued an order incorporating the terms of that settlement (ECF
Per the agreement and ensuing order, Defendants were to
pay out several installments: $2000 to Plaintiff on June 1, $2000
Plaintiff, and $1,356.63 (for court costs) to Jezic & Moyse, LLC,
on September 1.
According to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants paid their first
two installments, but have failed to pay out the third and,
presumably, the fourth.
(ECF No 41-1).
brought this motion, and Defendants have not responded.
Federal courts have inherent power to enforce settlement
See Hensley v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., 277 F.3d
535, 540 (4th Cir. 2002).
Further, federal jurisdiction is beyond
dispute as this court’s order (ECF No. 40) conditioned ultimate
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381
violation of the order[.]”
In order to enforce the settlement agreement, the court must
1) find that the parties reached a complete agreement and 2) must
Hensley, 277 F.3d at 540-41.
As both the existence and terms of
this particular settlement agreement are embodied in an order of
the court, both these prerequisites are met.
“A motion to enforce
a settlement agreement is an action for specific performance of a
U.S. ex rel. McDermitt, Inc. v. Centex-Simpson Const.
Co., Inc., 34 F.Supp.2d 397, 399 (N.D. W. Va. 199), aff’d sub nom.
United States v. Centex-Simpson Constr., 203 F.3d 824 (4th Cir.
As Defendants have now violated the settlement agreement,
Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the terms of that
Plaintiff’s request for additional attorney’s fees of $150
will not be granted.
While a prevailing party may be entitled to
attorney’s fees under FLSA, it is not at all clear that this
performance of a settlement agreement stemming from a FLSA dispute.
At this time, the court will not grant Plaintiff additional
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to enforce settlement
agreement filed by Plaintiff will be granted, in part.
order will follow.
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?