ORDER

KAREN L. LITKOVITZ, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion to enforce settlement agreement (Doc. 16). Defendants have not filed a response to the motion.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff George W. Gaines brought this action in February 2013 against defendants Charles Amann, White Oak Motor Sports, Inc., White Oak Auto, LLC, and WOAC, Ltd. Plaintiff sought to recover unpaid and underpaid wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., the Ohio Fair Minimum Wage Standards Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 4111.01, et seq., and Ohio Rev. Code § 4113.15. (Doc. 1).

Following settlement negotiations among the parties, the Court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement agreement. Accordingly, on November 18, 2013, the Court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice on the condition that any of the parties could move to reopen the action within 90 days if settlement was not consummated. (Doc. 12). The parties subsequently reduced their agreement to writing. (Doc. 13, Plaintiffs Exh. B — "Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims") (hereafter, "Settlement Agreement"). Charles Amann signed the Settlement Agreement on behalf of himself and the remaining defendants on November 23, 2013. (Id.). The Court entered an Order approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissing this case with prejudice on November 27, 2013. (Doc. 14).

The Settlement Agreement includes terms for the payment of a total of $12,000.00 to resolve plaintiffs claims. (Settlement Agreement, § III.A, B). The payments were to be made in two installments: (1) an installment in the amount of $7,000.00 to be paid on or before December 15, 2013; and (2) an installment in the amount of $5,000.00 to be paid on or before January 31, 2014. (Id.). Plaintiff was to receive $2,000.00 from each installment, a total of $4,000.00, and plaintiffs counsel was to receive $5,000.00 from the first installment and $3,000.00 from the second installment, a total of $8,000.00, for attorney's fees and costs. (Id.).

Plaintiff filed his motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement on February 21, 2014. (Doc. 16). Plaintiff alleges defendants breached the Settlement Agreement by failing to make payments due under the terms of the agreement in accordance with the schedule established thereunder. Plaintiff states that defendants were required to pay plaintiff and his counsel a total of $12,000.00 in two installments, with the second installment in the amount of $5,000.00 to be paid no later than January 31, 2014. (Id.). Plaintiff states that defendants did not make any payments by January 31, 2014. (Id.). Plaintiff asserts that although defendants subsequently made two payments totaling $3,000.00, the amount of $2,000.00 remains unpaid.1(Id.). Plaintiff contends that efforts to resolve the matter informally have been unsuccessful. (Id.).

II. The motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is granted.

As a threshold matter, the Court must address the issue of its jurisdiction over plaintiffs motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. "Enforcement of [a] settlement agreement . . ., whether through [an] award of damages or decree of specific performance, is more than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Amer., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994). A district court retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement if the dismissal entry incorporates the terms of the settlement agreement, or if the order of dismissal includes a separate provision governing the parties' obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement, such as a provision retaining jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. Id. at 381. See also Hill v. Ohio State Univ., 870 F.Supp.2d 526, 530 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (citing Moore v. United States Postal Serv., 369 F. App'x 712, 716-17 (6th Cir. 2010) (district court retains jurisdiction over a settlement agreement when the judgment entry dismissing the underlying case provides: "The Court retains jurisdiction over the settlement contract for the purposes of its enforcement.")).

Here, the Court's Order dismissing the parties' lawsuit specifically provides as follows: "The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce, if necessary, the terms of the Settlement Agreement." (Doc. 14). Accordingly, there is no question that the district court retains jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement and has authority to resolve plaintiffs motion to enforce the agreement.

A settlement agreement is a type of contract, and state substantive law governing contracts generally controls a settlement agreement. Cogent Solutions Grp., LLC v. Hyalogic, LLC, 712 F.3d 305, 309 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Bamerilease Capital Corp. v. Nearburg, 958 F.2d 150, 152 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting White Farm Equip. Co. v. Kupcho, 792 F.2d 526, 529 (5th Cir. 1986)). Here, Ohio contract law must be applied because the parties are all Ohio residents or entities (see Docs. 1, 2) and they entered into the Settlement Agreement in Ohio. See Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Watts, 963 F.2d 148, 150 (6th Cir. 1992) (stating that Ohio's choice of law rules require that the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the contract should govern disputes arising from the contract when the parties have not specified which state's substantive law should apply, and that Ohio has adopted the test set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 to determine which state has the more significant relationship to the contract). Under Ohio law, if the contract language is clear and unambiguous, there are no issues of fact to be determined. Lincoln Electric Company v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 210 F.3d 672, 684 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Ohio, 474 N.E.2d 271, 272-73 (Ohio 1984)). The language will be enforced as written. See Ledyard v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 739 N.E.2d 1, 3-4 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2000) (citations omitted).

The payment terms of the Settlement Agreement at issue are clear. Defendants do not dispute that under those terms, they were required to make a $5,000.00 installment payment to plaintiff and his counsel by January 31, 2014; they did not pay any of the amount owed on this installment by the due date; and although they subsequently paid $3,000.00 due on this second installment, defendants still owe $2,000.00 of the total amount that was due by January 31, 2014. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a court order requiring defendants to comply with the unambiguous terms of the Settlement Agreement by paying the full amount which remains unpaid and owing under the agreement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. 16) is GRANTED.

2. Defendants must comply with the payment terms of the Settlement Agreement by making a payment of $2,000.00 to plaintiff and providing written proof of payment to the Court within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.