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 and TANEISHA
KITTLING,
Plaintiffs,
versus
SAL LALLAHU ALAIHU
WASALLAM LLC, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-05848
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs Toni Marie Capone Kinsey and Taneisha
Kittling filed this lawsuit, asserting claims against
Defendants Sal Lallahu Alaihu Wasallam LLC, Akmfnsh
Enterprise, Inc, and Akhlaque Hussain for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Dkt 1.
At the outset of the case, Defendants filed what was
styled as an “agreed motion to dismiss,” indicating that the
parties had agreed to mutual settlement of all claims.
Dkt 6. The motion was promptly granted, and the action
was closed. Dkt 7.
Plaintiffs then filed a motion to reopen the case and for
sanctions, contending that Plaintiffs hadn’t agreed to any
settlement and that Defendants had “committed a fraud on
the Court” by representing otherwise. Dkt 8. Sworn
declarations of Kittling and Kinsey were attached, stating
that they hadn’t settled their claims or signed the motion
for nonsuit. Dkts 8-1 & 8-2. The motion to reopen and for
sanctions was granted, with Defendants ordered to pay the
amount of attorney fees expended by Plaintiffs to obtain
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 31, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05848 Document 39 Filed 07/31/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
reconsideration and reversal of the order of dismissal.
Dkt 9.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Richard W. Bennett. Dkt 10. He previously
recommended that renewed agreed motion for nonsuit by
Kittling and Defendants be granted. Dkt 36. That
recommendation was adopted, leaving only claims by
Kinsey remaining. Dkt 38.
Pending is a motion by Defendants to reconsider
sanctions order, to enforce settlement agreement, and to
recover attorney fees and costs. Dkt 18. Defendants dispute
any fraud or fabrication, contending that Kinsey “read and
voluntarily signed a settlement agreement.” Id at 2. As
such, they request that (i) the settlement agreement be
enforced, (ii) the prior sanctions order be reversed, and
(iii) attorney fees and costs be awarded. Id at 10.
Defendants later moved for protective order and to stay
discovery. Dkt 29. Plaintiffs, while still represented by
counsel, filed a response, and Defendants replied. Dkts 19
& 24.
Counsel for Plaintiffs then moved to withdraw from
representation, citing difficulty communicating with
Plaintiffs and conflict-of-interest concerns. Dkt 30. After
hearing, Judge Bennett granted the motion to withdraw,
leaving Plaintiffs unrepresented. Dkt 34. Plaintiffs were
afforded thirty days to retain substitute counsel and forty-
five days to file responses to Defendants’ pending motions.
Id at 7. Kinsey didn’t retain substitute counsel or respond
to such motions.
Judge Bennett thus recommends that the motion for
reconsideration be granted as unopposed under Local Rule
7.4 because Kinsey failed to respond to the motion or
otherwise take any action to prosecute her claims. Dkt 38
at 6. He further recommends that the motion for protective
order and to stay discovery be denied as moot. Dkt 29.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see
Case 4:25-cv-05848 Document 39 Filed 07/31/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
None of the parties filed objections. No clear error
otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the
Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the
applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 38.
The motion by Defendants for reconsideration of
sanctions order, to enforce settlement, and for attorney fees
and costs is GRANTED. Dkt 18.
The prior sanctions award is VACATED. Dkt 9. Each
party shall bear their own costs.
The emergency motion by Defendants for protective
order and to stay discovery is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 29.
Any other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
All claims brought by Toni Marie Capone Kinsey are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will issue by separate order.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on July 31, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-05848 Document 39 Filed 07/31/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3