Solar Tours, Inc. v. Macias

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DO CUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOLAR TOURS, INC., DOC #: ______ ___________ DATE FILED: 9/29/2025____ Plaintiff, -against- 05 Civ. 5597 (AT) LUIS MACIAS d/b/a Tournet Systems, ORDER Defendant. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: On October 15, 2024, Defendant pro se, Luis Macias, moved for an order reopening this case and enforcing a May 2006 settlement agreement (the “Motion”). See ECF No. 22 at 1. This case was discontinued on May 12, 2006, with prejudice, pursuant to a purported settlement agreement entered into between the parties which was not filed on the public docket. See ECF No. 21. In its order of discontinuance, the Court provided that, “on or before June 12, 2006, the plaintiff may apply to [the Court] . . . for restoration of the action to the calendar if the settlement is not effected, in which event the action will be restored to the calendar of the District Judge.” See id. at 1. No party moved for restoration of the action before June 12, 2006, and no party had made any filing in this case until Macias filed the Motion. The Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain Macias’s motion. In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994), the Supreme Court held that when a federal court dismisses a case with prejudice on the assumption that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement concerning all claims, the federal court does not retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement unless the court incorporates the terms of the settlement agreement into a court order or states, in the order of dismissal, that it retains jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, see 511 U.S. at 380–81. Neither of these exists here: The Court’s order of discontinuance does not incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement, and it contains no language concerning the retention of jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. See generally ECF No. 21; see also Scelsa v. City Univ. of N.Y., 76 F.3d 37, 40 (2d Cir. 1996) (“In the absence of . . . an independent basis for jurisdiction, a federal court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement only if the dismissal order specifically reserves such authority or the order incorporates the terms of the settlement. Absent some action making a settlement agreement part of a dismissal order or some other, independent basis for jurisdiction, enforcement of a settlement agreement is for the state courts.” (citation omitted)). The Motion is, therefore, DENIED. Of course, Macias remains free to bring a lawsuit alleging breach of contract against Plaintiff, Solar Tours, Inc. (“Solar Tours”), in an appropriate forum. Cf. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 382 (“[E]nforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.”); Ralph Lauren Corp. v. CSR Group, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 3387, 2017 WL 1861779, at *1–3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2017) (stating that even when diversity jurisdiction may have provided a basis to enforce a settlement agreement, plaintiff was required to file a new action). After Macias filed the Motion, the parties submitted various requests. Some of those letters concern motion practice relating to the motion to reopen and enforce, see, e.g., ECF No. 31 (Solar Tours’ motion for leave to file sur-reply); ECF No. 33 (Macias’s motion).! Because these requests seek various forms of relief related to the Motion, the Court DENIES them as moot. See ECF Nos. 31, 33. Lastly, while decision on Macias’s motion to reopen and enforce was pending, Macias filed a motion for sanctions and punitive damages against Solar Tours. ECF No. 36. Solar Tours then cross-moved for sanctions. ECF No. 40. Setting aside the significant question of whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear Macias’s sanctions motion, the Court declines to impose sanctions in its discretion, see Perez v. Posse Comitatus, 373 F. 3d 321, 325 (2d Cir. 2004). The Court also concludes that neither party has introduced evidence sufficient to meet the “high bar” required for establishing a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), see Now-Casting Econ., Ltd. v. Econ. Alchemy LLC, 628 F. Supp. 3d 501, 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). Accordingly, the motions filed at ECF Nos. 36 and 40 are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 22, 31, 33, 36, and 40. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 29, 2025 New York, New York ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge A series of filings by Macias appears to construe a declaration filed at ECF No. 28 as a motion by Solar Tours to “strike” Macias’s declaration, see ECF Nos. 32-34. Solar Tours’s filings, however, do not include a request to strike Macias’s declaration.