In Re: The Cross Link Group, LLC,. The Cross-Link Group, LLC v. Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 11, 2012
No. 11-12289
JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-02656-ODE,
Bkcy No. 07-06325-PWB
In Re:
THE CROSS LINK GROUP, LLC,
d.b.a. Lanik,
d.b.a. Cascade Station,
d.b.a. Protax,
d.b.a. Crosslink Realty,
Debtor.
__________________________________________________________________
THE CROSS-LINK GROUP, LLC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 11, 2012)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, EDMONDSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Cross-Link Group, LLC appeals the district court’s order granting
Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc.’s motion to enforce a settlement
between them. Cross-Link contends that the district court abused its discretion by
enforcing a preliminary settlement agreed to on June 4, 2010. The terms of that
settlement agreement were documented in email exchanges between the parties.
However, Cross-Link was displeased with the contents of the Release attendant to
the final settlement agreement presented to it on June 7, 2010 and refused to sign
it.
We review a district court’s decision to enforce a settlement agreement for
abuse of discretion. Hayes v. Nat’l Serv. Indus., 196 F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir.
1999). “A district court has inherent power to summarily enforce settlement
agreements entered into by parties litigant in a pending case.” Ford v. Citizens
2
and S. Nat’l Bank, 928 F.2d 1118, 1121 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations and internal
quotations omitted). In its email to Fidelity, Crosslink wrote, “Crosslink is willing
to accept the settlement offer of $218,000 in exchange for a full release.” [R.55-1
at 10.] Fidelity responded, “[W]e have a settlement in the amount of $218,000.”
Id. at 8. Thus, whatever problems the parties may have encountered in reducing
their agreement to a final writing, the district court was well within its discretion
to enforce the settlement. The district court correctly found that the parties had a
meeting of the minds with regard to the terms of the settlement.
In its briefs, Crosslink also raises the issue of the attorneys’ fee award. The
Notice of Appeal, however, appeals only the “Order Enforcing Settlement entered
in this action on August 6, 2010” [R.99 at 1.], not the order granting attorneys’
fees entered by the district court on April 14, 2011. [R.98.] Therefore, the issue of
attorneys’ fees is not properly before this court.1
AFFIRMED.
1
As the issue of attorneys’ fees is not before us, the motion to intervene filed by Krause,
Golomb & Witcher—Crosslink’s counsel in the underlying case—is DENIED as moot.
3