Peralta v. PCS USA LLC et al

Filing 85

AMENDED OPINION & ORDER: For these reasons, the Motion is GRANTED, and judgment is entered in favor of Peralta and against Defendants in the amount of $44,140.82, consisting of $44,000 owed on the principal balance under the Se ttlement Agreement and $140.82 in interest accrued on past-due installment payments, plus post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 78 and close the case SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave on 3/12/2025) (ar) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
YAFREICI PERALTA,
-v-

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 22 Civ. 9312 (SLC)

PCS USA LLC and LOUIS VAN LEEUWEN,

AMENDED OPINION & ORDER

Defendants.
SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants PCS USA LLC and Louis Van Leeuwen have failed to make payments to Plaintiff
Yafreici Peralta pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement. (ECF No. 63 (the “Settlement
Agreement”). Peralta moves to enforce the Settlement Agreement, which the Court retained
jurisdiction to enforce. (ECF Nos. 63 at 9; 78 (the “Motion”)). Defendants notified the Court that
they “have no funds available” to pay Peralta. (ECF No. 82). For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is GRANTED, and judgment is entered against Defendants in the amount of $44,140.82,
consisting of $44,000 owed on the principal balance under the Settlement Agreement and
$140.82 in interest accrued on past-due payments, plus post-judgment interest pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1961.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 28, 2022, Peralta filed the Complaint, which asserted federal and state
discrimination, harassment, and unpaid wages claims against Defendants. (See generally ECF
No. 2). On May 22, 2024, Peralta filed the First Amended Complaint, which added claims for
breach of contract and retaliation. (See generally ECF No. 57).

Following a settlement conference on June 20, 2024, the parties reached a settlement in
principle, and the Honorable Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed the case but allowed the parties to
seek to reopen it within 30 days if the settlement was not consummated. (See ECF minute entry
for June 20, 2024; ECF No. 58). On August 14, 2024, the parties consented to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction for all purposes. (ECF No. 62). The next day, the Court so-ordered the parties’
stipulation of dismissal and retained jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. (ECF
No. 63).
The Settlement Agreement required Defendants to pay Peralta a total of $55,090.07,
including a one-time payment of $2,090.07, one payment of $5,000, and $48,000 to be paid in
equal installments over 24 months, in exchange for the release of all Peralta’s claims against
Defendants through August 15, 2024. (ECF No. 63 at 4–5, 7). Defendants made the two onetime payments and the first two installment payments—totaling $11,090.07—but they have not
made any payments since August 31, 2024. (ECF Nos. 79 at 4; 80 ¶¶ 3–5). The Settlement
Agreement provides for interest on uncured, past-due payments at a rate of “5% per diem from
the original due date until the date of payment in full[.]” (ECF No. 63 at 6–7). Peralta contends
that $44,000 remains to be paid on the principal balance. (ECF No. 79 at 4).
On January 14, 2025, the Court granted Peralta’s request to reopen the case for the
limited purpose of moving to enforce the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 74). On February 4,
2025, Peralta filed the Motion. (ECF No. 78). On February 20, 2025, after Defendants failed to
respond to the Motion, the Court sua sponte extended the deadline for them to do so, warning
that “failure to file a response to the Motion will result in the Court ruling on the Motion based
on [Peralta’s] submission and the parties’ [S]ettlement [A]greement alone.” (ECF No. 81). On
2

March 5, 2025, Defendants filed a letter stating that they “have no funds available” to pay
Peralta. (ECF No. 82). The Court deems the Motion unopposed and ripe for decision.
III. DISCUSSION
To start, the Court expressly “retain[ed] jurisdiction over any disputes and breaches of”
the Settlement Agreement, so the Motion is properly before the Court. (ECF No. 63 at 9). See
Dannhauser v. TSG Reporting, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 747 (CM) (DF), 2019 WL 2950142, at *7 (S.D.N.Y.
June 21, 2019) (quoting Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354, 358 (2d Cir. 2015) (“To retain
jurisdiction [to enforce a settlement agreement] . . . a district court’s order of dismissal must
either (1) expressly retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, or (2) incorporate the
terms of the settlement agreement in the order.”). 1
“It is well settled that a district court has the power, and indeed the duty, to enforce
summarily, on motion, a settlement agreement reached in a case pending before it.” Emile v.
Ethical Culture Fieldston Sch., No. 21 Civ. 3799 (JPO), 2023 WL 4763233, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 26,
2023). Instead of applying the four Winston factors, which courts use to determine whether an
enforceable settlement agreement exists, see Winston v. Mediafare Entm’t Corp., 777 F.2d 78,
80 (2d Cir. 1985), we apply basic contract principles “to determine the rights and obligations of
the parties” because the Settlement Agreement is a written instrument that the parties executed
and the Court approved. (ECF No. 63). See Dannhauser, 2019 WL 2950142, at *8; see also United
States v. Prevezon Holdings, Ltd., 289 F. Supp. 3d 446, 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“[S]ettlement
agreements are contracts and must therefore be construed according to general principles of
contract law.”).

1

Internal citations and quotation marks are omitted from case citations unless otherwise indicated.
3

The Settlement Agreement invokes New York law (ECF No. 63 at 9), under which the
elements of a breach of contract claim are “the plaintiff’s performance under the contract, the
defendant’s breach, and damages resulting from the breach.” Romero v. New Blue Flowers
Gourmet Corp., No. 16 Civ. 8753 (DF), 2021 WL 860986, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. March 8, 2021).
It is uncontested that Peralta performed her end of the bargain by releasing her claims
against Defendants pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, which Defendants then breached by
failing to make required payments. (See ECF Nos. 63; 79; 80; 82). Peralta has been damaged to
the extent of the payments Defendants have failed to make under the Settlement Agreement.
Peralta has thus established each of the elements of a claim for breach of the Settlement
Agreement, so the Motion is granted. See Romero, 2021 WL 860986, at *4–5 (granting plaintiff’s
motion to enforce where he performed under the settlement agreement and defendant
breached by failing to remit the contemplated payments).
The remaining issue is the amount Peralta should receive. The outstanding principal
balance is $44,000, which Defendants must pay. See Butler v. Suria, No. 17 Civ. 3077 (KPF), 2020
WL 5105160, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2020) (granting motion for entry of judgement after breach
of settlement agreement for the principal balance owed plus prejudgment interest on past-due
payments). The $2,000 installments due on each of September 30, 2024, October 31, 2024,
November 30, 2024, December 31, 2024, January 31, 2025, and February 28, 2025 are past due.
(Id.; ECF Nos. 63 at 5; 80 ¶ 5). In addition to the principal balance, Peralta seeks interest on these
past-due installments, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and argues that the interest rate
should be “calculated by the day[,]” i.e., multiplying the amount owed by 5% and then multiplying
that figure by the number of days since the payment was due, instead of per annum, i.e.,
4

multiplying the amount owed by 5%, dividing that figure by 365, and then multiplying that
amount by the number of days since the payment was due. (ECF Nos. 79 at 4 n.1, 6; 80 ¶¶ 6–9).
Under the Settlement Agreement, interest on unpaid installments accrues at “5% per
diem from the original due date until the date of payment in full” (ECF No. 63 at 6–7), which,
consistent with formulas used by other courts in this Circuit and offered as an alternative
calculation by Peralta, we calculate as to each past-due payment by (i) multiplying the payment
by 5%, (ii) dividing that amount by 365 days, and (iii) multiplying that amount by the number of
unpaid days.2 See Gesualdi v. Rizzo Assocs., Inc., No. 21 Civ. 1833 (AMD) (MMH), 2024 WL
4142075, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2024); Butler, 2020 WL 5105160, at *3; Chem Rx Pharm. Servs,
LLC v. Saratoga Care & Rehab. LLC, No. 19 Civ. 1312 (GTS) (CFH), 2020 WL 4047893 (N.D.N.Y.
July 20, 2020); 615 Bldg. Co. v. Rudnick, No. 13 Civ. 215 (GBD) (RLE), 2014 WL 10187040, at *5
n.8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2014); (see ECF Nos. 79 at 4; 80 ¶ 9). Accordingly, Defendants also owe
$140.82 in interest on past-due payments.
Payment Due Date

Payment Amount

September 30, 2024
October 31, 2024
November 30, 2024
December 31, 2024
January 31, 2025
February 28, 2025
Total:

$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000

Days Since Due
Date
162
131
101
70
39
11

Interest Accrued
$ 44.38
$ 35.89
$ 27.67
$ 19.18
$ 10.68
$ 3.01
$ 140.82

Because she seeks to reduce the Settlement Agreement to a money judgment, Peralta
also moves for post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. (ECF No. 79 at 4, 6). Post-

2

($2000*0.05) / 365 = $0.27 per day
5

judgment “[i]nterest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district
court . . . [and] shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1961(a). The Second Circuit has “consistently held that an award of post-judgment interest is
mandatory.” Schipani v. McLeod, 541 F.3d 158, 165 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Westinghouse Credit
Corp. v. D'Urso, 371 F.3d 96, 100 (2d Cir. 2004)). Accordingly, post-judgment interest is awarded
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Motion is GRANTED, and judgment is entered in favor of Peralta
and against Defendants in the amount of $44,140.82, consisting of $44,000 owed on the principal
balance under the Settlement Agreement and $140.82 in interest accrued on past-due
installment payments, plus post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 78 and close the case. 3
Dated:

New York, New York
March 12, 2025

SO ORDERED.
_________________________
SARAH L. CAVE
United States Magistrate Judge

The March 11, 2025 Opinion and Order is amended to remove the instruction directing the Clerk of Court
to calculate post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. (ECF No. 84 at 6).

3

6