Kinsey et al v. Sal Lallahu Alaihu Wasallam LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
TONI MARIE CAPONE KINSEY,
TANEISHA KITTLING,
Plaintiffs
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-cv-5848
SAL LALLAHU ALAIHU
WASALLAM LLC, AKMFNSH
ENTERPRISE, INC., AND
AKHLAQUE HUSSAIN,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court1 is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of
Sanctions Order, to Enforce Settlement, and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
(ECF No. 18),2 and Emergency Motion for Protective Order and to Stay
Discovery (ECF No. 29). 	Based on a review of the motions, the record, and
relevant 	law, 	the 	Court 	RECOMMENDS 	Defendants’ 	Motion 	for
Reconsideration be GRANTED (ECF No. 18), and Emergency Motion for
Protective Order and to Stay Discovery be DENIED AS MOOT (ECF No. 29).
1 This case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 10).
2 The Motion is captioned “Defendants’ Consolidated Response in Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen and for Sanctions, and Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration
of Sanctions Order, and Motion to Enforce Settlement and Request for Attorney’s Fees and
Costs” [hereinafter “Motion for Reconsideration of Sanctions Order, to Enforce Settlement,
and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs”]. (ECF No. 18 at 1).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05848 Document 38 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 9

2
I. 	Background
Plaintiffs Toni Marie Capone Kinsey (“Kinsey”) and Taneisha Kittling
(“Kittling”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this Fair Labor Standards Act action
against Defendants Sal Lallahu Alaihu Wasallam LLC, Akmfnsh Enterprise,
Inc., and Akhlaque Hussain. (ECF No. 1).
On December 18, 2025, Defendants filed an agreed motion for nonsuit
with signed agreements representing that the parties “agreed to a mutual
settlement of all their claims.” 	(ECF No. 6). 	On December 22, 2025, the
District Judge granted the motion for nonsuit and closed the case. 	(ECF No.
7). 	Plaintiffs then moved to reopen the case and for sanctions, submitting
sworn declarations denying that any settlement had been reached and denying
that they had signed the nonsuit motion, notwithstanding the signatures
appearing on it. (ECF No. 8).
On December 31, 2025, the District Judge granted the motion to reopen
and for sanctions, struck the agreed motion for nonsuit and order of dismissal,
reopened the case, and granted “an award of sanctions . . . in the amount of
attorney fees necessarily expended by Plaintiffs to obtain reconsideration and
reversal of that order of dismissal.” (ECF No. 9).
On 	February 	24, 	2026, 	Defendants 	filed 	the 	instant 	Motion 	for
Reconsideration of Sanctions Order, to Enforce Settlement, and for Attorney’s
Case 4:25-cv-05848 Document 38 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 9

3
Fees and Costs (ECF No. 18). 	Defendants dispute any finding of fraud or
fabrication, rely on the declaration of an alleged third-party eyewitness to the
execution of the settlement agreements, and ask the Court to, among other
things, 	vacate 	the 	sanctions 	award, 	enforce 	the 	settlement 	agreements,
dismiss the case with prejudice, and award Defendants their own attorney’s
fees and costs. 	(Id. at 1–2, 10–11). 	Plaintiffs, through then-counsel, filed a
response in opposition on March 2, 2026 (ECF No. 19), and Defendants filed a
reply on March 10, 2026 (ECF No. 24).
On April 14, 2026, Defendants filed the instant Emergency Motion for
Protective Order and to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants’
Motion to Enforce Settlement. (ECF No. 29). Plaintiffs, through then-counsel,
filed a response on April 26, 2026. (ECF No. 31).
Also on April 26, Plaintiff’s counsel, Peter Bober, moved to withdraw as
counsel, citing a breakdown in communication with Kittling and potential
conflicts of interest among Kinsey, Kittling, and counsel. 	(ECF No. 30).
Following a hearing on May 12, 2026, the Court granted the motion. (ECF No.
34). 	In its May 12 Order, the Court ordered that Plaintiffs would have thirty
days to retain substitute counsel and forty-five days to respond to Defendants’
pending motions. 	(Id. at 6–7). 	The Court further advised that, absent new
counsel, Plaintiffs could proceed pro se. (Id. at 7).
Case 4:25-cv-05848 Document 38 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 9

4
On May 20, 2026, Kittling and Defendants filed an Agreed Motion for
Nonsuit, representing that Kittling and Defendants had agreed to a mutual
settlement of all claims between them. 	(ECF No. 35). 	On May 22, 2026, the
Undersigned recommended that the motion be granted, Kittling’s claims be
dismissed with prejudice, and she be terminated as a party. (ECF No. 36). The
District Judge adopted the recommendation on June 12, 2026. 	(ECF No. 37).
Accordingly, Kittling has been dismissed as a party, leaving Kinsey as the sole
remaining Plaintiff.
Both deadlines set in the Court’s May 12 Order have since passed.
Kinsey has not retained substitute counsel or filed any response to ECF No. 18
or ECF No. 29, has not requested an extension of either deadline, and has
taken no further action to prosecute her remaining claims since her former
counsel’s withdrawal.3 Both pending motions are therefore ripe for disposition.
II. 	Legal Standard
When a motion seeks reconsideration of an interlocutory order, such as
a sanctions order, the motion should be considered under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“Rule”) 54(b). Roor Int’l BV v. Stinky’s Smoke Shop, LLC, No. 4:18-
cv-735, 2024 WL 1913133, at *3 (E.D. Tex. May 1, 2024) (citing Cabral v.
3 Under the Local Rules of the Southern District of Texas, “[f]ailure to respond to a
motion will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” S.D. TEX . L.R. 7.4.
Case 4:25-cv-05848 Document 38 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 9

5
Brennan, 853 F.3d 763, 766 (5th Cir. 2017)). “Rule 54(b) allows parties to seek
reconsideration of interlocutory orders and authorizes the district court to
‘revise[ ] at any time’ 	‘any order or other decision . . . [that] does not end the
action[.]’” Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting
F ED. R. C IV. P. 54(b)). 	“Under Rule 54(b), ‘the trial court is free to reconsider
and reverse its decision for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence
of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of the substantive
law.’” 	Id. (quoting Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d
167, 185 (5th Cir. 1990)). “In applying its discretion to reconsider under Rule
54(b), a district court should construe the procedural rules with a ‘preference
toward resolving the case on the merits’ and ‘weigh the interests of justice’
when deciding whether to permit the movant’s request to reconsider.” 	Roor
Int’l BV, 2024 WL 1913133, at *4 (quoting Austin, 864 F.3d at 337–38). 	“[A]
motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b) is ‘not the proper vehicle for rehashing
evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised
before the entry of [the order].’” 	Id. (quoting Koeppel v. Hartford Accident &
Indem. Co., 608 F. Supp. 3d 398, 403 (E.D. La. 2022)).
Additionally, Rule 41(b) provides that, “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute
or to comply with . . . a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action
or any claim against it.” 	FED. R. C IV. P. 41(b). 	“The authority of a court to
Case 4:25-cv-05848 Document 38 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 9

6
dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an
‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily
vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31
(1962).
III. 	Discussion
To begin, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Sanctions Order, to
Enforce Settlement, and 	for Attorney’s Fees and 	Costs (ECF No. 18) is
unopposed and should be granted. 	The Court’s May 12 Order gave Kinsey
forty-five days to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration. 	(ECF
No. 34 at 6–7). 	That deadline has passed without any filing from Kinsey and
without any request for an extension. 	Kinsey has likewise failed to retain
substitute counsel and has taken no further action to prosecute her claims.
Under Local Rule 7.4, Kinsey’s failure to respond is treated as a representation
of no opposition to the motion. 	See S.D. T EX. L.R. 7.4. 	Additionally, Kinsey’s
failure to comply with the Court’s orders and to prosecute her remaining claims
support granting the relief Defendants seek. 	See F ED. R. C IV. P. 41(b). 	The
Undersigned has no evidence before it other than the current record, which
includes Defendants’ submissions to support the execution of the settlement
agreements. 	Kinsey has not contested that record, and the time to do so has
Case 4:25-cv-05848 Document 38 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 9

7
passed. On this record, the Undersigned recommends that Defendants’ Motion
(ECF No. 18) be granted as unopposed, that the settlement agreement be
enforced as to Kinsey, and that Kinsey’s remaining claims against Defendants
be dismissed with prejudice.
Next, Defendants’ Emergency Motion for Protective Order and to Stay
Discovery (ECF No. 29) should be denied as moot. 	Defendants’ motion
specifically 	sought 	relief 	pending 	resolution 	of 	Defendants’ 	Motion 	for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 18). 	Because the recommendation above resolves
the motion for reconsideration, no merits discovery remains to stay or protect
against. Accordingly, the relief sought in ECF No. 29 is moot.
Finally, the Court recommends that the December 31, 2025 sanctions
award 	should 	be 	vacated 	and 	that 	Plaintiffs’ 	request 	for 	the 	associated
attorney’s fees be denied. The December 31 Order awarded sanctions, at that
juncture, in the amount of attorney’s fees necessarily incurred by Plaintiffs in
obtaining reconsideration and reversal of the then-existing dismissal order,
premised on Plaintiffs’ representation that no settlement had in fact been
reached and that Defendants’ contrary representations were false. 	(ECF No.
9). 	That premise has not been sustained; Kinsey has not responded to
Defendants’ 	motion 	for 	reconsideration, 	has 	not 	opposed 	the 	evidence
Defendants 	submitted 	concerning 	execution 	of 	the 	settlement, 	and 	has
Case 4:25-cv-05848 Document 38 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 9

8
otherwise failed to prosecute her claims. 	On this record, and in light of the
recommendation to enforce the settlement agreement, there is no continuing
basis for the sanctions award.
IV. 	Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Defendants’ Motion
for 	Reconsideration 	of 	Sanctions 	Order, 	to 	Enforce 	Settlement, 	and 	for
Attorney’s Fees and Costs (ECF No. 18) be GRANTED, and Defendants’
Emergency Motion for Protective Order and to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 29) be
DENIED 	AS 	MOOT. 	As 	such, 	the 	Court 	RECOMMENDS 	Kinsey’s
remaining claims against Defendants be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
the sanctions award entered in the Court’s December 31, 2025 Order (ECF No.
9) be VACATED; and Plaintiffs’ request for the attorney’s fees previously
awarded thereunder be DENIED. Each party shall bear their own costs.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on July 15, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-05848 Document 38 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 9

9
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-05848 Document 38 Filed 07/15/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 9