United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30510

Summary Calendar

Lawrence Richardson; Andrew Hill; Arthur 

Hutchinson Terry; Bernell Roman, Jr.; Claudia Boyle, 

et al

Plaintiffs—Appellees,

versus

Famous Bourbon Management Group, Incorporated; 

Fiorella's on Decatur, Incorporated; Guy Olano, Jr., 

P.O. Box 57809, New Orleans, LA 70157, doing business as 

Jazz Cafe, doing business as Fiorella's Cafe, doing 

business as Beerfest; Platinum Bourbon, Incorporated; 

Silver Bourbon, Incorporated; Brass Bourbon, 

Incorporated; Bourbon Burlesque Club, Incorporated, 

Temptations; 327 Bourbon Street, Incorporated; 

Temptations, Incorporated; La Beauti, Incorporated; 

Fais Deaux-Deaux, Incorporated, also known as Last 

Call; Jaxx House, Incorporated, Erroneously referred 

to as Jaxx's House, Incorporated, also known as Jazz 

Cafe; Manhattan Fashion, L.L.C., also known as Scores 

West; N'Awlins Entertainment of Louisiana, 

Incorporated, also known as N'Awlins Entertainment 

Group, 

Defendants—Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 20, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-30510 Document: 00515870047 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2021
No. 20-30510

2

Appeal from the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 2:15-CV-5848; No. 2:17-CV-1093;

No. 2:18-CV-6573

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

This appeal concerns the district court’s enforcement of a settlement 

agreement in consolidated actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act by 

former employees of a group of New Orleans restaurants. We affirm.

I.

On January 20, 2020, two weeks before trial, the parties reached a 

settlement agreement mediated by a magistrate judge. The parties submitted 

a Memorandum of Settlement for the district court’s approval and for entry 

of a consent judgment. The district court entered a 60-day Order of Dismissal 

on January 3, 2020, and because it concluded that it must approve the 

settlement’s fairness under the FLSA, directed the parties to submit a 

proposed consent judgment, reserving jurisdiction until the consent 

judgment was entered. On March 2, 2020, the parties moved for an extension 

of time to finalize the settlement documents. The district court granted the 

motion and reset the deadline for the finalized settlement agreement to 

March 17, 2020. 

After the defendants changed counsel, the parties were unable to 

agree on a consent judgment. The district court then reopened the case, held 

several status conferences, and “repeatedly ordered the parties to confect a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 20-30510 Document: 00515870047 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2021
No. 20-30510

3

consent judgment as set forth in the agreed upon Memorandum of 

Settlement signed in January 2020.” Finally, on July 8, 2020—more than 

seven months after settlement was reached, during which time the 

defendants lodged several arguments that the district court deemed frivolous 

— the district court ordered the plaintiffs to file the instant motion to enforce 

the settlement agreement. The defendants also submitted a proposed 

consent judgment and distribution chart showing each plaintiff’s entitlement 

mirroring the plaintiff’s proposed orders, with minor language changes. After 

briefing and argument from both sides, the district court granted the motion 

to enforce the settlement and entered the plaintiffs’ proposed judgment. The 

defendants timely appealed to this court. 

II.

Having expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement in its 

dismissal order, the district court had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement 

agreement. See Kokkenen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 

378 (1994). (holding that a district court can retain jurisdiction over a 

settlement by either embodying the settlement contract in an order or 

expressly retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over this appeal from a final judgment. 

A district court has inherent power to enforce settlement agreements 

in cases pending before it. Mid-South Towing Co. v. Har-Win, Inc., 733 F.2d 

386 (5th Cir. 1984). This court looks to Louisiana law to determine the 

validity and construction of the settlement agreement. See Lockette v. 

Greyhound Lines, Inc., 817 F.2d 1182, 1185 (5th Cir. 1987) (“Although federal 

courts possess the inherent power to enforce agreements entered into in 

settlement of litigation, the construction and enforcement of settlement 

agreements is governed by the principles of state law applicable to contracts 

generally.”). Louisiana Civil Code Article 3071 governs the enforcement of 

Case: 20-30510 Document: 00515870047 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/20/2021
No. 20-30510

4

settlement agreements. The settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and 

the defendants can be enforced on a finding that a binding, written agreement 

exists under Louisiana law. Lee v. Hunt, 631 F.2d 1171, 1173-74 (5th Cir. 

1980). The defendants do not contest before this court that the parties 

reached a binding agreement; they argue only that the terms entered by the 

district court in the Consent Judgment differ from those agreed to in the 

Memorandum of Settlement. Under Louisiana law, we review de novo a 

district court’s interpretation of a contract. See Gebreyesus v. F.C. Schaffer & 

Assocs., Inc., 204 F.3d 639, 642 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing, e.g., Patterson v. City 

of New Orleans, 686 So.2d 87, 90 (La. Ct. App. 1996)); Claimant ID 

100197593 v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 666 F. App’x 358, 360 (5th Cir. 2016) 

(“Because the interpretation of a settlement agreement is a question of 

contract law, we review de novo.”). 

III.

The Memorandum of Settlement called for the defendants to pay 

$800,000, in annual installments of $200,000, on March 15 of each year until 

2023. The Memorandum of Settlement further provided:

The foregoing shall be reduced to a Consent Judgment subject 

to Court approval.

a. Each defendant-employer shall be liable for their respective 

pro rata share of amounts due to each of their employees. In 

addition to the obligation to pay by each defendant, the sum 

due shall be guaranteed by Guy W. Olano, Jr., Famous Bourbon 

Management Group, Inc., Silver Bourbon and Temptations, 

Inc.

b. All attorneys’ fees and court costs shall be paid from the 

foregoing fund. The payments shall be paid from an escrow 

account administered by a qualified accountant or 

administrator designated by the parties paid for by defendants.

Case: 20-30510 Document: 00515870047 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/20/2021
No. 20-30510

5

c. Each claimant shall produce the following documentation for 

approval of the administrator: (1) valid identification; (2) social 

security card; (3) executed IRS form W9.

d. The amount of payment to each claimant shall be designated 

by their counsel and approved by the Court.

e. The terms of this settlement shall be confidential and shall 

not be disclosed by the parties.

f. The record and resulting Consent Judgment shall be sealed. 

The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter. 

Defendants shall pay the mediation fees of Perry Dampf and 

Judge Daniel Knowles (ret.).

g. This shall be in full and final settlement of all claims of the 

plaintiffs/claimants and the Court shall enter dismissals with 

prejudice in favor of the defendants, Joseph Ascani and Guy W. 

Olano, III.

The Memorandum of Settlement further provides that “[t]he parties hereto 

acknowledge that each has the authority to execute this document to be fully 

binding on behalf of the person or entity indicated” and that “[t]he parties 

. . . agree that by executing this agreement they are binding themselves to the 

agreement.” The Consent Judgment that the district court entered also 

provides that “[e]ach defendant-employer shall be liable for their respective 

pro rate share of amounts due to each of their employees,” and references an 

attached “Distribution Chart” setting the “amount of payment to each 

claimant.” The Distribution Chart is a spreadsheet listing each plaintiff, the 

amount of each installment check, and the “Companies Claimant Worked 

For.” 

The defendants primarily argue before this court that they never 

agreed to the Distribution Chart, which they say violates the terms of the 

Memorandum of Settlement. They contend that although the Memorandum 

of Settlement provides that each defendant shall be liable for its “pro rata 

share of amounts due to each of [its] employees,” the Distribution Chart 

Case: 20-30510 Document: 00515870047 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/20/2021
No. 20-30510

6

“requires each defendant to pay the entirety of each claim if the employee 

worked for more than one defendant.” 

The defendants base their arguments on a misreading of the Consent 

Judgment and Distribution Chart. The Memorandum of Settlement provides 

that “[e]ach defendant-employer shall be liable for their respective pro rata 

share of amounts due to each of their employees.” It further states that 

“[t]he amount of payment to each claimant shall be designated by their 

counsel and approved by the Court.” Consistently with this agreement, the 

Consent Judgment provides that “[e]ach defendant-employer shall be liable 

for their respective pro rata share of amounts due to each of their 

employees.” Also consistently with this agreement, the Consent Judgment 

incorporates a Distribution Chart, submitted by the plaintiffs but apparently 

based on information generated by the defendants, which shows the amount 

of payment owed to each claimant. Rather than requiring any defendant to 

pay more than its pro rata share, the Distribution Chart shows each 

claimant’s entitlement and the defendants responsible for paying their pro 

rata share of that entitlement.

It is unclear where the defendants got the idea that any are obliged to 

“to pay the entirety” to claimants who worked for more than one restaurant, 

as this language appears in neither the Memorandum of Settlement, the 

Consent Judgment, nor the Distribution Chart. As the district court 

concluded, “[none] of these documents contain language that would make 

each Defendant responsible for the entirety of a Plaintiff’s claim if the 

Plaintiff worked for more than one Defendant.” Instead, the Consent 

Judgment, by incorporating the Distribution Chart, lists the amount due to 

each claimant and the individual defendants who are, together, responsible 

for that amount, leaving it up to those defendants to determine the amount 

each will pay as their pro rata share. If the defendants refuse or are unable to 

pay, “Guy W. Olano, Jr., [Famous Bourbon], Silver Bourbon and 

Case: 20-30510 Document: 00515870047 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/20/2021
No. 20-30510

7

Temptations, Inc.” are responsible as guarantors under the Memorandum of 

Settlement. In short, the plaintiffs have not claimed that any defendant is 

responsible for paying more than its pro rata share, the district court has not 

so concluded, and no document reflects such an obligation. 

Having found no error in the district court’s interpretation of the 

Memorandum of Settlement, the judgment below is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-30510 Document: 00515870047 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/20/2021