UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 0:22-cv-62321-KMM

WSPSL, LLC and SAVANT CONSULTANTS,

LLC d/b/a BLUE SKIES AVIATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AIRCRAFT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

And JORGE LUIS CRUZ PONCE

Defendants.

 /

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Final Judgment 

Pursuant to Settlement Agreement. (“Mot.”) (ECF No. 69). Therein, Plaintiffs WSPSL, LLC and 

Savant Consultants, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) request that the Court enforce its settlement agreement with 

Aircraft Management Corporation and Jorge Luis Cruz Ponce (“Defendants”) due to Defendants’

alleged breach. Id. at 1. The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States 

Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 42). On August 7, 2023, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and 

Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 43), recommending that the Motion be DENIED for lack 

of jurisdiction. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. The 

matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.

The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific 

objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 

Case 0:22-cv-62321-KMM Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2023 Page 1 of 3
784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general 

objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected 

to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on 

the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 

14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill,

No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge 

“evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” 

(citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))). Because no objections were 

filed, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. 

In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Louis concludes that the Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce 

the settlement. See R&R at 3. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Louis explains that “[o]nce a court 

enters an order of dismissal, it generally loses jurisdiction to further act on the case except to the 

extent that it specifically retains jurisdiction.” See id. (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. 

of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381–82 (1994)). Magistrate Judge Louis further summarized the law, 

explaining “[i]t is undoubtedly true that all parties must consent to the retention of jurisdiction 

over the enforcement of a settlement agreement if the case is dismissed by stipulation of all parties, 

but that agreement alone is not sufficient. The district court must also issue an order specifically 

retaining jurisdiction in accordance with Kokkonen because ancillary jurisdiction allows a district 

court to effectuate its orders, not to enforce stipulations.” Id. (quoting Anago Franchising, Inc. v. 

Shaz, LLC, 667 F.3d 1272, 1280–81 (11th Cir. 2012)). Here, the Court issued an order upon the 

Parties' notice of dismissal, see (ECF No. 40), which did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the 

settlement. Thus, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Louis that the Court does not have 

jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute. 

Case 0:22-cv-62321-KMM Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2023 Page 2 of 3
UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being 

otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R 

(ECF No. 43) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 41)

is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ______ day of October, 

2023. 

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record

12th

Case 0:22-cv-62321-KMM Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2023 Page 3 of 3