Professional Merchant Advance Capital, LLC v. Fuselier and Company et al

Filing 46

OPINION AND ORDER re: 37 FIRST MOTION Enforce the Settlement Agreement re: 34 Sealed Document filed by Professional Merchant Advance Capital, LLC. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion to enforce the Agreement is GRA NTED. The Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $582,629.00. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion. (Doc. 37.) It is SO ORDERED. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/28/2016) (kko)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PROFESSIONAL MERCHANT ADVANCE
CAPITAL, LLC,
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
– against –
13 Civ. 7135 (ER)
FUSELIER & CO., et al.,
Defendants.

Ramos, D.J.:
Professional Merchant Advance Capital, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant motion against
Fuselier & Co. and four other affiliated defendants (the “Defendants”) to enforce a settlement
agreement (the “Agreement”) among the parties. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have failed
to make payments pursuant to the Agreement. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion
is GRANTED.
I.

Factual Background
Plaintiff filed suit on October 8, 2013, (Doc. 1), alleging that the Defendants failed to

make payments on a futures receivable agreement. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law (“Pl.
Mem.”) (Doc. 38) at 3–4. The parties entered into and signed the Agreement on January 2, 2015,
which this Court “so ordered” on January 5, 2015. (Doc. 34).
The Agreement requires Defendants to pay Plaintiffs a negotiated settlement amount
pursuant to a payment schedule. Agreement ¶ 2(a)–(i). The Agreement also has a default
provision that accelerates the total amount due of $582,629.00 in the event of default. Id. at ¶ 4.
Plaintiffs allege that they have received no payments under the Agreement and, on June
17, 2015 filed the instant motion, pursuant to the default provision. (Doc. 37). On June 24,

2015, this Court directed the Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s motion by July 1, 2015, but no
reply was ever submitted. (Doc. 40). On February 2, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a request that the
Court decide the motion on papers already submitted, and on February 4, 2016, the Court
ordered the Defendants to reply to Plaintiff’s request by February 5, 2016. (Docs. 41, 42). On
February 5, 2015, the Defendants submitted a letter to the Court in which they did not disclaim
their obligation, but rather stated that they were “under severe financial stress and unable to
make the payments called for in the Settlement Agreement,” and requested “a continuance of
thirty days to renegotiate the payment terms.” (Doc. 43). On February 10, 2016, the Court
denied this request and stated its intent to decide the motion on the basis of the papers already
submitted. (Doc. 45).
II.

Discussion
A district court retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement that is “so ordered”

by the court. See Meetings & Expositions, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 490 F. 2d 714, 717 (2d Cir.
1974); see also Scottish Air Int'l, Inc. v. British Caledonian Grp., PLC., 152 F.R.D. 18, 23–24
(S.D.N.Y. 1993) (stating that in Meetings & Expositions, “the ‘So Ordered’ contract established
consent to the court’s power over the parties…” and therefore held that the District Court
retained jurisdiction to “enforce and consider challenges to the 1966 Settlement Agreement that
was entered in to in this district”). Here, the Court “so ordered” the Agreement on January 5,
2015, and the Agreement stipulated that the “Court shall reserve and retain jurisdiction over the
matter in the event of any dispute of the terms…or for the purpose of entering Judgement against
Defendants in the event of a default under the terms of the So Ordered Confidential Stipulation
of Settlement.” Agreement ¶ 6; id. at 8.

2