Armando Sapon Sapon et al v. Hanbat Restaurant, Inc. et al
ORDER re: 37 Letter filed by Fredy Tomas Baquiax Ajche, Carlos Armando Sapon Sapon. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' Motion (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $35,000.00. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave on 2/16/2021) (nb) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
Case 1:18-cv-11457-SLC Document 40 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CARLOS ARMANDO SAPON SAPON, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 18 Civ. 11457 (SLC)
-vHANBAT RESTAURANT, INC. and NACK GYEUN
SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge.
The parties in this wage-and-hour case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)
consented to this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. (ECF No. 29).
On November 5, 2019, the Court approved the parties’ settlement agreement (the “Agreement”)
under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), and on November 13,
2019, the action was dismissed with prejudice. (ECF Nos. 30, 32). Consistent with Paragraph 7
of the Agreement, the Court retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement for purposes of
its enforcement. (ECF No. 37-2 at 3 ¶ 7).
Also as part of the Agreement, Defendants executed an Affidavit of Confession of
Judgment (the “Confession of Judgment”), pursuant to which, in the event of their default under
the Agreement, they authorized entry of judgment against them in the amount of $35,000 (less
any payments made) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. (ECF
Case 1:18-cv-11457-SLC Document 40 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 4
On April 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a letter-motion (the “Motion”) notifying the Court of
Defendants’ default under the Agreement and requesting the entry of judgment against
Defendants in the amount of $35,000. (ECF Nos. 37, 37-1). According to Plaintiffs’ counsel,
Defendants failed to make any payments under the Agreement, even after Plaintiffs provided
Defendants with notice of their default and agreed to a revised payment schedule. (ECF No. 371 ¶¶ 8, 10–12). On April 24, 2020, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to the Motion, which
they did not do. (ECF Nos. 38–39).
A district court has the authority to enforce a settlement agreement where “the court
makes ‘the parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement . . . part of
the order of dismissal—either by separate provision (such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction”
over the settlement agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in
the order.’” In re Am. Express Fin. Advisors Sec. Litig., 672 F.3d 113, 134 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994)). As noted above, the Court
approved the terms of the Agreement and agreed to retain jurisdiction over the action for
purposes of enforcing the Agreement. Therefore, the Court has the power to enforce the
Agreement. See Maritime Grp. Co. v. Entrac Inc., No. 18 Civ. 4924 (KHP), 2019 WL 2482376, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2019).
“A federal court also has the power to enter a confession of judgment where subject
matter jurisdiction exists and the confession of judgment was made knowingly and voluntarily.”
Maritime Grp. Co., 2019 WL 2482376 at *2 (citing Xerox Corp. v. West Coast Litho, Inc., 251 F.
Case 1:18-cv-11457-SLC Document 40 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 4
Supp. 3d 534, 537–38 (W.D.N.Y. 2017)); see Rodrigues v. Corona Advances, Inc., No. 15 Civ. 6815
(BCM), 2018 WL 4043149, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2018) (same). Where the confession of
judgment satisfies these factors, the federal court may enter judgment as permitted by the law
of the state in which the court is located. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 64.
Under New York law, “while the New York courts permit the entry of judgment on a
proper affidavit of confession by the clerk of the county in which entry of judgment is authorized,
‘without an action,’ see CPLR § 3218(a)-(b), the federal courts generally require the party seeking
entry of a confessed judgment to make a motion.” Rodrigues, 2018 WL 4043149, at *2.
Here, the Court finds that the Confession of Judgment contains the information required
by CPLR § 3218(a). See Maritime Grp. Co., 2019 WL 2482376, at *3. Although the Confession of
Judgment authorized entry in New York State Supreme Court, the Agreement, signed by
Defendants, also provided for this Court to retain jurisdiction over any enforcement proceeding,
and therefore, the Confession of Judgment may be entered in this Court. (See ECF No. 37-2 at 3
¶ 7, 4). By filing the Motion, which attaches Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration, the Agreement, and
the Confession of Judgment, on the electronic docket of this action, Plaintiffs have provided
effective notice to Defendants. See Rodrigues, 2018 WL 4043149, at *2 (finding that electronic
filing constituted adequate notice of entry of judgment). Finally, the Court also finds that there
is “ample reason” to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion and enter a default judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 55 “because there is no doubt” that Defendants are in default by failing to pay
any of the amounts required under the Agreement and failing to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion.
Maritime Grp. Co., 2019 WL 2482376, at *3. Defendants’ default has prejudiced Plaintiffs by
Case 1:18-cv-11457-SLC Document 40 Filed 02/16/21 Page 4 of 4
delaying the recovery of the amounts they were due under the Agreement and causing Plaintiffs
to incur additional attorneys’ fees to bring the Motion. See id. Therefore, judgment should be
entered in favor of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs should be awarded the amounts due under the
Agreement pursuant to the Confession of Judgment.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED. The Clerk of
Court is respectfully requested to enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of
Dated: February 16, 2021
New York, New York
SARAH L. CAVE
United States Magistrate 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?