Hmong College Prep Academy v. Woodstock Capital, LLC and Clark Reiner
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:21-cv-01721
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Hmong College Prep Academy v. Woodstock Capital, LLC and Clark Reiner, Judge Magnuson adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the school's unopposed motion to force the defendants to make a settlement payment they had already agreed to but apparently had not yet paid.
Hmong College Prep Academy, which is owed a settlement payment, and Defendants Woodstock Capital, LLC and Clark Reiner, who are now subject to a court order and formal judgment requiring them to make that payment within five business days.
What happened
In Hmong College Prep Academy v. Woodstock Capital, LLC and Clark Reiner (Case No. 21-1721), a Minnesota federal court was asked to enforce a settlement agreement between a charter school and two defendants — a limited liability company called Woodstock Capital and an individual named Clark Reiner — after the defendants apparently failed to deliver a payment they were obligated to make under the agreement.
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko had previously reviewed the matter and issued a written recommendation on November 6, 2025, advising that the school's motion to enforce the settlement should be granted. The motion was unopposed, meaning the defendants did not file any response or objection. Because no one objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation, the presiding judge was only required to review it for obvious mistakes.
Judge Magnuson found no error in the magistrate judge's reasoning and adopted the recommendation in full on December 3, 2025. The court ordered Woodstock Capital, LLC and Clark Reiner to deliver the required settlement payment to Hmong College Prep Academy within five business days, and also entered a formal court judgment against the defendants in the amount of that payment, giving the school an enforceable legal judgment if the defendants still fail to pay.
The detailed version
This order arises from Case No. 21-1721 (PAM/DLM) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, decided by District Judge Paul A. Magnuson on December 3, 2025.
Background and Procedural Posture
Plaintiff Hmong College Prep Academy filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement it had reached with Defendants Woodstock Capital, LLC and Clark Reiner. The motion (Docket No. 90) alleged that the defendants had not fulfilled their payment obligation under Section 1 of the Settlement Agreement. The motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on November 6, 2025 (Docket No. 96) recommending that the motion be granted. The defendants did not oppose the motion or object to the R&R.
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b), a district court must review de novo (fresh, without deference) any part of an R&R to which specific objections are filed. Where, as here, no objections are filed, the court reviews only for clear error. The court cited Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) in support of this standard.
Ruling: Judge Magnuson found no error, clear or otherwise, in the magistrate judge's reasoning, and adopted the R&R in full. The court:
- Adopted the R&R (Docket No. 96);
- Granted Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Docket No. 90);
- Ordered Defendants Woodstock Capital, LLC and Clark Reiner to specifically perform (i.e., actually carry out) their payment obligation under Section 1 of the Settlement Agreement by delivering the required payment to Hmong College Prep Academy within five business days of the order's issuance; and
- Entered a formal judgment for Plaintiff Hmong College Prep Academy in the amount of the settlement payment required by Section 1 of the Settlement Agreement.
Note
The opinion does not disclose the dollar amount of the settlement payment or the underlying nature of the dispute between the parties.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.