Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-19-11557/USCOURTS-ca11-19-11557-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-11557

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-24054-JEM

THE AFFILIATI NETWORK, INC., 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

MARSHALL SOCARRAS GRANT, P.L.,

Law Firm Plaintiff's counsel,

 Plaintiff, 

versus

COMMON SENSE BEAUTY, LLC, 

TIMOTHY K. ISAAC, 

 Defendants - Appellants,

REINER & REINER, PA,

Law Firm Defendant's Counsel,

 Defendant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 5, 2020)

USCA11 Case: 19-11557 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 1 of 8
2

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Defendants-appellants Timothy K. Isaac and Common Sense Beauty, LLC 

(together, the “Defendants”) appeal from the district court’s order enforcing a 

settlement agreement between the Defendants and The Affiliati Network, Inc. 

(“Affiliati”), the plaintiff-appellee. On appeal, the Defendants argue that the district 

court erred in rejecting their due process argument and adopting the magistrate 

judge’s Report and Recommendation, and in denying their motion to alter or amend 

the judgment. After a careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts, for purposes of this appeal, are these. Affiliati is a webbased marketing company that receives commissions for generating sales for its 

clients. Common Sense Beauty sells beauty and dietary supplement products, and 

Isaac is the sole member of this limited liability company and is its CEO. In April 

2017, the Defendants engaged Affiliati’s services to promote the sale of their 

products online. In return, the Defendants agreed to pay Affiliati for these services. 

The Defendants made their payments to Affiliati at first, but eventually, they 

fell behind, running up a $1,277,951 tab. On November 3, 2017, Affiliati brought 

suit to collect. However, not long after, Affiliati filed a motion seeking to enforce a 

settlement agreement it allegedly reached with the Defendants. Specifically, 

Affiliati claimed its counsel, Ruben Socarras, had negotiated the agreement with 

USCA11 Case: 19-11557 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 2 of 8
3

Jeffrey Smith, Defendants’ counsel, between December 12 and 14, 2017. It attached 

to its motion an email chain that purported to show the parties had agreed to settle 

this action for $1.1 million, payable in monthly installments of $60,000. 

In relevant part, the email chain reads:

Email 1: The Settlement Offer

From: Ruben Socarras

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 12:50 PM

To: Jeffrey L. Smith

Subject: Affiliati v. Tim Isaac

. . . 

1. Option 1 -- $1,000,000 payable monthly beginning on Jan. 

31, monthly thereafter until paid in full, which will include 12% 

interest. Payments will be no less than $125,000 per month; 

OR alternatively,

2. Option 2 -- $1,100,000, payable monthly beginning on Jan. 

31, monthly thereafter until paid in full, which will include 12% 

interest. Payments will be no less than $75,000 per month.

Email 2: Defendants’ Counteroffer

From: Jeffrey L. Smith

Date: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 2:59 PM

To: Ruben Socarras

Subject: Affiliati v. Tim Isaac

Ruben,

Thanks for the email. I discussed with my client and he 

authorized me to counter at $1,000,000 payable at $60,000 per 

month installments. He does not agree to pay interest. We can 

close the deal today if those figures are acceptable to your 

client.

USCA11 Case: 19-11557 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 3 of 8
4

Jeff

Email 3: Affiliati’s Counteroffer

On Dec. 13, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Ruben Socarras wrote:

Jeff,

I’ve been informed to tell you that the final offer is as follows:

1.1 million, 60,000 per month, no interest; or

1.0 million, 75,000 per month, no interest.

Email 4: Defendants’ Acceptance

From: Jeffrey L. Smith

Date: Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 10:46 AM

To: Ruben Socarras

Subject: Affiliati v. Tim Isaac

We have a deal on the $60,000 per month terms. Pls send me 

the settlement agreement.

Jeff

For their part, the Defendants claimed Affiliati misrepresented the 

communications. They argued that Smith had not accepted any offer from Affiliati. 

Instead, his final email agreeing to the “$60,000 per month terms” referred only to 

the terms in Defendants’ counteroffer -- and not to Affiliati’s final settlement offer. 

To resolve this dispute, the district court referred Affiliati’s motion to enforce 

to a magistrate judge. On February 22, 2018, the magistrate judge held an 

evidentiary hearing to determine the best path forward. At the hearing, the 

magistrate judge heard testimony from Socarras, Affiliati’s counsel. She also heard 

USCA11 Case: 19-11557 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 4 of 8
5

from the defendant, Isaac. On May 11, 2018, the magistrate judge issued her Report 

and Recommendation advising the district court to grant Affiliati’s motion to 

enforce. The district court agreed, issuing its orders adopting the Report and 

Recommendation and enforcing the settlement agreement on September 17. The 

Defendants timely appealed those orders, along with the court’s order denying the 

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration. 

We review questions of constitutional law de novo. United States v. Brown, 

364 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2004). We review the district court’s denial of 

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See Jenkins v. 

Anton, 922 F.3d 1257, 1263-64 (11th Cir. 2019). Under that standard, “we affirm 

unless we determine that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard, failed 

to follow proper procedures in making the relevant legal determination, or made 

findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Holland v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 

941 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). 

First, we are unpersuaded by the Defendants’ claim that the district court erred 

in rejecting their due process argument and adopting the magistrate judge’s Report 

and Recommendation. Essentially, they argue the magistrate judge violated their 

due process rights by cutting short their cross-examination of Affiliati’s counsel, 

Socarras, during the evidentiary hearing. In support of their argument, Defendants 

rely on snippets of the evidentiary hearing transcript which purport to show that the 

USCA11 Case: 19-11557 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 5 of 8
6

magistrate judge concluded Defendants’ cross-examination before counsel had an 

opportunity to explore the reliability of Socarras’s testimony. 

It is clear that “where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due 

process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.” 

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 (1970). A review of the full transcript amply 

establishes that the magistrate judge afforded the Defendants ample opportunity to 

do so. At the outset of the hearing, Affiliati introduced into evidence a series of 

emails documenting the settlement negotiations between itself and the Defendants. 

Notably, these emails were admitted without objection from the Defendants and 

“[p]ursuant to the parties’ stipulation.” Indeed, Defendants’ counsel affirmed that 

“we have agreed with the exhibits.” So Affiliati called Socarras, its counsel, to the 

stand to walk the court through the correspondence. At no point did the court permit 

Socarras to venture beyond a description of the emails’ contents. The court also 

rejected Socarras’s attempts to speculate as to Defendants’ state of mind and 

admonished Socarras to avoid narrating from the witness stand.

The Defendants then had an opportunity to cross-examine Socarras. At first, 

this examination consisted of questions from counsel for the Defendants that probed 

the existence of a settlement agreement. Counsel also argued that Smith lacked 

authority to negotiate a settlement on behalf of the Defendants. But then the crossexamination changed course. The Defendants next sought to challenge the accuracy 

USCA11 Case: 19-11557 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 6 of 8
7

of the email correspondence the court had already admitted into evidence. The 

Defendants also claimed that Affiliati had introduced the emails out of order so that 

the Defendants could argue that instead of accepting Affiliati’s settlement offer, 

Smith had done no more than reiterate his own counteroffer.

The magistrate judge appropriately declined to countenance this line of 

questioning. For one, the emails had been admitted into evidence as true and 

accurate representations of the settlement negotiation between Affiliati and the 

Defendants. Even the Defendants themselves were not prepared to call any witness 

qualified to testify that these emails might not be authentic. Moreover, the 

magistrate judge ruled correctly that the Defendants’ argument -- that the emails 

admitted into evidence did not properly reflect Smith’s communications -- “could 

not be supported by anything other than Mr. Smith’s testimony.” On this basis, the 

magistrate judge permitted the cross-examination to proceed as to matters within the 

scope of Socarras’s direct examination, and she gave the Defendants ten days to 

decide whether to supplement the record with testimony from Smith. In no respect 

did these actions contravene the Defendants’ due process rights. 

The magistrate judge also properly excluded a line of questioning from the 

Defendants as to whether Socarras was aware of certain allegations of impropriety 

against Affiliati, and whether he knew of a pending lawsuit between Montell 

Williams and the Defendants. As the magistrate judge aptly noted, those matters 

USCA11 Case: 19-11557 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 7 of 8
8

were far afield from the topic of the evidentiary hearing, and it was well within the 

“wide latitude” given to the trial court for her to have limited cross-examination into 

matters that were “only marginally relevant.” United States v. Baptista-Rodriguez, 

17 F.3d 1354, 1366 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 

673, 679 (1986)).

In short, the transcript of the evidentiary hearing reveals that the magistrate 

judge did not violate the Defendants’ right to due process. Rather, the magistrate 

judge afforded the Defendants’ ample opportunity for cross-examination and 

properly prevented the Defendants from inquiring only about topics outside the 

proper scope of the cross-examination. Notably, the magistrate judge even 

continued the hearing to permit a more fulsome exploration of those topics -- an 

opportunity the Defendants declined. Accordingly, the district court did not err in 

its orders adopting the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and granting 

Affiliati’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Moreover, because we 

conclude that the district court did not err in its order adopting the Report and 

Recommendation, we also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion 

by denying Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of that order.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 19-11557 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 8 of 8