Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC ( 2015 )

Case: 14-12020 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12020
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:10-cv-62273-RSR
ANAGO FRANCHISING, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SHAZ, LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 17, 2015)
Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES, and LINN, * Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*
The Honorable Richard Linn, United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting
by designation.
Case: 14-12020 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Anago Franchising sued Shaz, LLC, and Eco Building Services, LLC,
alleging that they breached a settlement agreement that the parties had executed to
resolve a prior lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
Shaz and Eco, and Anago now appeals. Following review of the record and with
the benefit of oral argument, we affirm. 1
Anago’s first argument is that the district court should have given preclusive
effect to the findings of fact made by a different federal judge in the prior lawsuit
when ruling on Shaz’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. This argument
lacks merit because we ultimately held in the prior lawsuit that the district court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Shaz’s motion to enforce the
settlement agreement and accordingly vacated the underlying order. See Anago
Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1280-81 (11th Cir. 2012). Simply
stated, a district court order that has been vacated due to lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction does not have any preclusive effect. See Butler v. Eaton, 141 U.S. 240,
243-44, 11 S.Ct. 985, 986-87 (1891); Quarles v. Sager, 687 F.2d 344, 346 (11th
Cir. 1982).
Anago’s second assertion is that the district court failed to take judicial
notice of (a) the now-vacated order in the prior lawsuit and (b) an order entered by
a third district judge in a similar action between Anago and another franchisee.
1
As we write for the parties, we set out only what is necessary to address Anago’s arguments.
2
Case: 14-12020 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 3 of 3
According to Anago, the district court should have judicially noticed the factual
findings contained in those two other orders. To the extent that this argument is
any different than Anago’s initial preclusion argument, it too fails. A district court
can take judicial notice of another court’s order “only for the limited purpose of
recognizing the ‘judicial act’ that the order represents or the subject-matter of the
litigation,” and not for the truth of the facts set forth in that order. United States v.
Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994). 2
AFFIRMED.
2
For essentially the same reasons, we reject Anago’s final argument—that orders entered in the
prior lawsuit and in the similar action should have been judicially noticed to create an issue of
fact on Anago’s alleged damages.
3