Case ID: f-appx_411/html/0267-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SURE FILL & SEAL, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. GFF, INC., a California Corporation, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
    No. 10-14165
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
    Jaromir Kovarik, KTHL Law Offices, PC, Lebanon, PA, John J. Ferry, Jr., Lebanon, PA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    John H. Rains, III, John H. Rains, III, P.A., Tampa, FL, Brendan J. Thorpe, Thorpe & Thorpe, APC, Los Angeles, CA, Michael C. Berry, Sr., Berry & Associates, P.A., Clearwater, FL, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
    Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVTTCH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Sure Fill & Seal, Inc., appeals the district court’s order entered on August 4, 2010. In short, the order enforced the parties’ settlement agreement and denied Sure Fill & Seal’s motion for sanctions against GFF, Inc., and its counsel, Brendan Thorpe, pursuant to Rules 11(c), 26(g), and 37(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the district court’s inherent power, and state law. Sure Fill & Seal contends that the district court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement and concluding that the agreement precluded its motion for sanctions. It therefore asks that we vacate the order and remand the case “for a fuller consideration of Plaintiffs allegations of misconduct on the part of Attorney Thorpe and/or defendant GFF, Inc.” Appellant’s brief at 44.

We find no merit at all in this appeal. We agree with the district court’s interpretation of the settlement agreement and the reasons stated for denying the motion for sanctions.

AFFIRMED.