HANJIN SHIPPING CO., LTD. v. PORT TRANSPORT INC. et al

Filing 89

OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 4/11/19. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT Of NEW JERSEY

JIN HAN MM as trustee for HANJIN
SHIPPING CO.,

Civ. No. 2:16-cv-2547
OPINION

Plaintiff,
V.

PORT TRANSPORT INC. PRODUCTS CO.,
eta!.,
Defendants.
WILLIAM J MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court on Trustee Jin Han Kim’s unopposed motion to
compel performance, ECF No. 86, and for other specific relief, ECF No. 99. For the reasons
set forth below, the motion and requested relief are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
I.

BACKGROUND

The underlying facts of this case are set forth in the court’s January 23, 2017 opinion,
familiarity with which is assumed. See ECF No. 43. Since that opinion, the original plaintiff
in this matter, Hanjin Shipping Co. (“Hanjin”), has entered bankruptcy proceedings in the
Republic of Korea (“Korean Bankruptcy”). Taylor Cert. ¶ 10-11, ECF No. 86-1. Jin Han
Kim (“Trustee”) was appointed trustee for Hanjin, and replaced Hanjin as the plaintiff here.
Id. ¶ 12.
According to the uncontroverted evidence before the Court, on June 7, 2018, the
defendants’ collectively agreed to offer Trustee $62,500 to settle this matter (“Offer”). Id.
¶ 15. Port agreed to pay $45,000, Asiana $5,000, Frontage $7,500, and HK $5,000. Id. ¶ 17.
Trustee approved of the Offer but noted the Korean Bankruptcy Court had final authority. Id.
¶ 15. To obtain the Korean Bankruptcy Court’s approval, Trustee needed a signed document
by all the parties agreeing to the settlement. Id. ¶ 16. Trustee’s attorney thus prepared a draft
settlement agreement and circulated it to the parties on June 26, 2018. Id. ¶ 1$. On June 29,
counsel for all the parties held a telephone conference with Judge Falk and advised him that
the matter was settled, subject to approval by the Korean Bankruptcy Court. Id. ¶ 19. Next,

‘Defendants (including third-party defendants) are Port Transport Inc. (“Port”), HK Techfloor, LLC
(“HK”), Asiana Express (New York) Corp. (“Asiana”), and Frontage Global, LLC (“Frontage” and
collectively, “Defendants”).
1

the parties’ attorneys collectively revised and approved of a written settlement agreement
(“Stipulation of Settlement”). Id. ¶J 19-21.
Port, Asiana, and Frontage signed the Stipulation of Settlement almost immediately.
Id. ¶ 22. HK did not. On June 30, 2018, Trustee’s counsel followed up with HK’s attorneys
regarding HK’s failure to execute the document. Id. ¶ 23. HK’s lawyer said “he was working
on it.” Id. Trustee’s counsel followed up again in October 2018, at which point HK’s
attorneys said, “he had several calls out.” Id. ¶ 25. Trustee followed up again in December
2018, and learned HK was not responding to communications from their attorneys. Id. ¶ 32.
To date, HK has failed to execute the Stipulation of Settlement. Id. At the same time,
HK has not indicated that it seeks to revoke its previous agreement to the settlement terms.
Id. ¶J 25, 29. But, because HK has not signed Stipulation of Settlement, Trustee has not been
able to present the settlement to the Korean Bankruptcy Court for approval. Id.
II.

DISCUSSION

Trustee moves for an order (1) requiring HK to sign the Stipulation of Settlement
within fifteen days and (2) if HK fails to do so, deem HK “to be bound by the settlement
agreement reached and reported to the Court on June 29, 2018 whereby HK Techfloor, LLC
is to pay $5,000 to [Trustee].” Proposed Order at 2 (Mar. 11, 2019), ECF No. 99 (“Proposed
Order”). Trustee’s motion and requested relief are unopposed.
A.

Jurisdiction

While the present motion is styled as a “motion to compel performance,” Trustee is
essentially asking the Court to deem the case settled. “In ongoing litigation, district courts
have the jurisdiction to decide whether the parties have settled the action.” Bryan v. Erie Cty.
Office of Children & Youth, 752 F.3d 316, 323 (3d Cir. 2014). This matter is ongoing. See
Order (June 29, 2018), ECF No. 77; Order (Feb. 7, 2019), ECF No. 85. Therefore, the Court
has jurisdiction to decide whether the parties settled. However, that does not mean the Court
has the authority to provide the specific relief requested by Trustee.
In part, Trustee requests an order compelling HK to physically sign the Stipulation of
Settlement. Proposed Order at 2. Trustee cites no authority giving federal district courts the
power to order such relief. Therefore, Trustee’s request for an order that “HK Techfloor, LLC
shall sign the Stipulation of Settlement” is DENIED. The Court does, however, have
jurisdiction to determine if the Stipulation of Settlement accurately reflects the parties’
agreement, and thus is binding on HK regardless of its signature. See Williams v. Newark
Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 06-cv-1649, 2008 WL 11425678, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2008), aff’d,
322 F. App’x ill (3d Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts will look to give effect to the terms of a settlement
wherever possible, absent a showing of fraud or some other compelling circumstance.”); see
also Bryan, 752 F.3d at 323.
B.

Settlement Agreement

To determine if the Trustee is entitled to an order deeming HK bound by the terms of
the Stipulation of Settlement, See Proposed Order at 2, the Court must detennine if the parties
2

actually settled. Settlement agreements are simply a form of contract governed by state law.
Mortellite v. Novartis Crop Prot., Inc., 460 f.3d 483, 492 (3d Cir. 2006).
In New Jersey[,] an agreement to settle a lawsuit, voluntarily entered into, is
binding upon the parties, whether or not made in the presence of the court, and
even in the absence of a writing.
Furthermore, because strong public policy
exists favoring settlement of litigation, courts will look to give effect to the
terms of a settlement wherever possible, absent a showing of fraud or some
other compelling circumstance.
.

.

.

Williams. 2008 WL 11425678, at *2 (citations omitted).
Here, the uncontroverted evidence supports the existence of a settlement. The parties’
representatives—including HK’s—repeatedly indicated their agreement to the terms set forth
in the Stipulation of Settlement. See Taylor Cert. ¶ 15-32. They collectively edited the
document and informed Judge Falk of the basic terms. Id. ¶ 18-21. The Court is unaware of
any law, fraud, other compelling circumstance preventing the enforcement of that agreement.
See Williams, 2008 WL 11425678, at *2 (enforcing terms of settlement wherever possible).
Thus, the Court deems this matter settled according to the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement.
Therefore, Trustee’s request for a Court order deeming HK “to be bound by the
settlement agreement reached and reported to the Court on June 29, 2018 whereby HK
Techfloor, LLC is to pay $5,000 to tTrustee],” Proposed Order at 2, is GRANTED.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Trustee Jin Han Kim’s unopposed motion to compel
performance, ECF No. 86, and the relief requested, ECF No. 99, is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.

Dated: April 10, 2019

‘

3

WILLIA. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.