Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02008/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02008-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
El Paso Natural Gas Company
Appellee
Ferrellgas, Inc.
Appellant
O. D. Smith
Not Party

Document Text:

o. D. SMITH, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

FILED 

United Sratn Coun of Appals 

Tench Cirruir 

MAR 2 9 1990 

I.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

FERRELLGAS, INC. ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 89-2008 

) (D.C. No. 87-1470-JC) 

EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY, ) ( D. N .M.) 

) 

Defendant~Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT, and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

Plaintiff Ferrellgas, Inc. appeals from an order of the 

district court granting the motion of defendant El Paso Natural 

Gas (EPNG) to enforce a settlement agreement between the parties, 

and denying Ferrellgas' request for interest on the settlement 

amount because of EPNG's delay in remitting the proceeds. 

Ferrellgas and EPNG both admit that they agreed to settle the 

pending lawsuit for $240,000. EPNG filed a motion to enforce the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judi cata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2008 Document: 01019966759 Date Filed: 03/29/1990 Page: 1 
"5. That any claims that EPNG might have 

insurance companies were not extinguished 

settlement as no insurance company was a party 

settlement." 

against 

by the 

to the 

Rec., vol. I, doc. 97 at 2. On appeal, Ferrellgas asks us to hold 

that the district court erroneously construed the legal effect of 

the settlement in the quoted paragraph. EPNG contends that we 

should dismiss the appeal because any opinion we render as to the 

preclusive legal effect of the settlement on a potential but as 

yet unfiled lawsuit would be advisory only and therefore improper. 

We agree with EPNG that we would be rendering an advisory 

opinion if we reviewed paragraph 5 of the district court order. 

Ferrellgas admits that it settled the case for $240,000 and that 

its settlement was not contingent on obtaining the broad release 

it requested. Under these circumstances, we believe the district 

court should simply have enforced the settlement agreement and 

dismissed the case with prejudice. Its construction in paragraph 

5 of the future legal effect of the agreement was not necessary to 

enforcing the settlement and constituted an advisory opinion. 

Whether EPNG is precluded by the settlement from bringing an 

action against Ferrellgas' insurance company is an issue best left 

for future litigation if and when it occurs. We therefore remand 

this case with orders that the district court strike paragraph 5 

from its order enforcing the settlement. Cf. Vondy v. White, 719 

F.2d 1265, 1266-67 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Ferrellgas also asked the district court to award it interest 

as a result of EPNG's delay in paying the $240,000. Given the 

ongoing dispute over the nature of the release, we do not believe 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-2008 Document: 01019966759 Date Filed: 03/29/1990 Page: 2 
I 

the district court abused its discretion in declining to impose 

interest. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED except with 

respect to paragraph 5 of its order. The case is REMANDED to the 

district court with orders that it strike paragraph 5 from its 

order enforcing the settlement agreement. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-2008 Document: 01019966759 Date Filed: 03/29/1990 Page: 3