BONOMO v. CITRA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
Filing
67
OPINION. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 12/15/2015. (nr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DAVID P. BONOMO,
Plaintiff,
.
V.
:
OPINION
Civ. No. 11-04409 (WHW) (CLW)
CITRA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC,
CITRA REAL ESTATE CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC,
CITRA]NEWWORK HEALTHCARE
CAPITAL, LLC, MICHAEL I. JANDA, and
HERBERT SALTZMAN,
Defendants.
Walls. Senior District Jud%e
As part of a 2014 settlement, Defendant Herbert Saltzman agreed to execute a Consent
Judgment that would be held in escrow by Plaintiff David Bonomo. Saltzman has not complied
with the agreement. Plaintiff moves for the Court to enforce the settlement agreement by
compelling Saltzman’s execution of the Consent Judgment. The motion is granted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case was dismissed by the Court on february 26, 2014, because the parties reported
that it had been settled. Order of Dismissal, ECF No. 33. The Court ordered:
that this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice and without costs, subject to
the right of the parties upon good cause shown within 60 days, to reopen the action
if the settlement is not consummated. The terms of the settlement agreement are
incorporated herein by reference and the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the
settlement agreement to enforce its terms.
‘a.
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
On April 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Mot. to
Enforce, ECF No. 34. His counsel certified that the parties settled on february 11, 2014 before
retired Judge John M. Boyle, who had recorded the settlement terms. Reply Cert. of Ronald
Nagle ¶2, ECF No. 36. On April 24, 2014, the Court ordered that the settlement agreement
submitted to the Court would become effective between the parties in ninety days or on July 25,
2014, whichever was later. Order of Apr. 24, 2014, ECF No. 37. This agreement specified, in
part, that the parties would enter into a Consent Judgment “in favor of Bonomo and against
Saltzman and Citra in the amount of$150,000.00,” which would be “held in escrow by Counsel
for Bonomo.” Nagle Cert. Ex A, ECF No. 34-1.
On August 20, 2014, Plaintiff again moved to enforce the settlement agreement. Second
Mot. to Enforce, ECF No. 38. The motion was unanswered by Saltzman and granted on October
14, 2014. The Court ordered Saltzman to “make all payments presently due under the settlement
agreement within thirty days of the date of this Order, and continue making all required
payments thereafter.” Order of Oct. 14, 2014, ECF No. 39. On November 19, 2014, Plaintiff
notified the Court that Saltzman had “failed and refused to comply with the Court’s Orders.”
Letter, ECF No. 40. The Court conducted an in-person conference on December 16, 2014, in
which Saltzman’s counsel said that Saltzman did not intend to make any of the payments that
were required by the parties’ agreement. Plaintiff filed a motion to hold Saltzman in contempt on
December 18, 2014. The Court denied that motion after finding that Saltzman lacked the
financial capacity to pay the amount owed. Order of Aug. 26, 2015, ECF No. 64.
Mr. Bonomo’s counsel now certifies that he has requested that $altzman’s counsel
execute the Consent Judgment as required by the settlement agreement but has not received any
response. Nov. 3, 2015 Cert. of Ronald Nagle, ECF No. 66-1
2
¶ 4. Plaintiff now moves to compel
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
the execution of the Consent Judgment. Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 66. Defendant has not replied
to this motion.
DISCUSSION
Where a district court “specifically retained jurisdiction over enforcement of [a]
settlement... [it] may later entertain an action arising from the settlement agreement under its
inherent authority to ‘manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees.”
Shell’s Disposal and Recycling, Inc. v. City ofLancaster, 504 F. App’x 194, 198 (3d Cir. 2012)
(quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Lfe Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375, 380 (1994)). This Court
specifically retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement here to enforce its terms in its
February 26, 2014 order. ECF No. 33.
Saltzman has repeatedly failed to comply with the terms of the parties’ settlement
agreement and continues to do so. He has not submitted any facts or argument in defense of this
motion. It is appropriate under these circumstances to order him to execute the Consent
Judgment and return it to Mr. Bonomo’s counsel, as the parties agreed. E.g. Johnson v. Digital
Connect, Inc., 2007 WL 101786 (D. Kan. Jan. 9, 2007) (court “ordered defendants to execute
and return to plaintiff [a] consent judgment”); A & D Partnership v. Equity Group, Inc., 1989
WL 33673 (E.D. La. April 5, 1989) (ordering plaintiffs to execute a consent judgment where
they had failed to do so after agreeing to settle).
Plaintiffs motion to compel Defendant’s execution of the Consent Judgment is granted.
An appropriate order follows.
Date: December/i 2015
United States Senior District Judge
3
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?