F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Nov ember 29, 20 05 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1146 1 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 01 23 6- CV-ORL-1 9- DAB CHA RL ES W . S TR

UBE , individu ally , and as Trustee of the Ch ar le s W
. S tr

ube Re voc ab le T ru st, on be ha lf of him se lf and a ll oth er s si m ilarl y

sit uate d, W IL BE RT N O RRIS , ind ivi dua lly and o n be ha lf

of hi m se lf a ndall ot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed , et al ., Pl ai nti ff s- Appe lle es , BEVERLY MALONE, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us AME RICA

N E QU IT Y INV ES TMENT LI FE IN SU RA N CE CO MP A

N Y , an I ow a co rp or at ion , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1301 4 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 01 23 6- CV-ORL-1 9- DAB2

CHA RL ES W . S TR

UBE , individu ally , and as Trustee of the Ch ar le s W
. S tr

ube Re voc ab le T ru st, on be ha lf of him se lf and a ll oth er s si m ilarl y

sit uate d, BEVERLY MALONE, W IL BE RT N O RRIS , ind ivi dua lly , and o n be ha lf of him se lf and a ll oth er s si m ilarl y

sit uate d, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe lle es , ve rs us AME RICA

N E QU IT Y INV ES TMENT LI FE IN SU RAN CE CO MP A N Y , an I ow a co rp or at ion , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe al s f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 29, 200 5)
Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BL A CK

and P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T his c onso lid at ed

c as e co nc er

ns tw o a ppe al s pe rt ai nin g to the se ttl em en t of
a cl as s a ct ion
. C harl es S tr ube , on h is o w n be ha lf

and o n be ha lf

of anatio nw ide class of 23,000 ind ividu als, sued A m erican Equity Investm ent Lif

e Insurance Co m pany ( “ A m er ic anE qui ty ”) , a lle gin g th at A m er ic anE qui ty

c om m itt ed avari ety of m isrepresentations and om issio ns in conn ection with its sale to class m em bers3

of equi ty-in de xe d a nn ui ti es forest at e p la nn in g p ur po se s. Be ve rly S. Malo ne , a
m em ber of the cla ss, challenges the settlem ent to the extent that it wouldforce her to abandon her personal claim s against Am erican Equity in a K entucky

state court al le gin g th at

A m er ic anE qui ty

c om m itt ed vari ous m isr ep re se ntatio ns and
om is si on s i n c on ne ct io n wi th th ei r es tabl is hm en t o f Mal on e’s li vi ng tru st . A m er ic anE qui ty

appe al s th e de nia l of

an in j unc tio n it

sou ght pr ev en tin g M al one from continu ing with her personal action. S trube rem inds th is Court that the ages of th e cl as s m em

be rs m ak e ti m e o f th e es se nc e in th e d is po si ti on of t hi s ca se . O n S ep te m

be r 28, 200 1, Ch ar le s S tr ube f ile d ac la ss a ct ionin Fl or ida state
co urt whic h w as late r re m ove d to the U nit ed S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e District of F lorida on October 22, 2001. O n February 8, 2005, the district court
en te re d an or de r gr an tin g f ina l a ppr ova l of

the c la ss s ettle m en t a gr ee m en t. T he
se ttl em en t pr ovi de d f

or vari ous fo rm s of

non -e co nom ic and e co nom ic r el ie f an d required class m em

bers to waive their

rights to m aintain claim s against Am erican E qui ty “ on the ba sis of

, c onne ct ed

w ith , ari sin g out of

, or r el at ed to, in w hol e or in part” “ the m arketing, solicitation, application, underwriting, a cceptance, sale, pur ch as e, ope ratio n , pe rf orm an ce , r et en tio n, a dm ini str at ionand/ or r ep la ce m en t” of c ove re d e qui ty

ind ex ed annui tie s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt i nte rp re te d th e re le as e not to a ppl y c la im s si m ilarl y

sit uate d to the m ar

ke tin g, pr ep ar at ion , or

sa le of li vin g4

trusts. O n May

19, 2005, Am erican Equity sough t an order f

rom the district court
en j oin ing Ma lon e fr om

c ont inu ing w ithhe r ac tio n a ga ins t A m er ic anE qui ty in Ke ntucky
. The district court declined to do so because it believed an evident iary hearing would be needed to determ ine whether Malone’ s livin g trust claim s wer e i nf a c tc l a i ms ab o u te qu i ty i n d e x e dan nu i t i e s . On M ay 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , Ame r i c anEq u i ty ap pe al ed the de nia l. I. Ju ris di ct io n o f Am eri can Equ it y ’s App eal
. O n June 9, 200 5, thi s C ourt c er tif ie d th e fo llo w ing j ur isd ic tio na l qu es tio n fo r the li tig an ts: “ Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s M ay 19, 200 5 or de r de ny ing [d ef en d an t ’s ] m o t i o nfo r . . . a ni n ju n ct i o ni s i m

m ed i at el y ap p ea l ab l e? ” We
co nc lu de th atth is Co urt h as juri sd ic ti on . II
. D oe s th e Se ttl em en t A gr ee m en t Q ua sh M al one ’ s K en tuc ky S uit ? T his Co urt r ev ie w s th e int er pr et at ionof

ac la ss a ct ionse ttl em en t a gr ee m en t de novo
. Se e, e . g. , W

ate rs v. I nt’ l Pre ci ous M

etals Co rp. , 237 F
. 3d 1 273, 127 7 (1 1 Ci r. 200 1) ( “ W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onstru ct ionof the [ se ttl em en t] th [a ] gr ee m en t de nov o. ”)
. Unde r Ru le 23( e) of the F ed er al Ru le s of

Ci vil Procedure, court approval is required for the settlem ent of the claim s of a ce rtified class. Courts do no t have the power to m odify the term s of the settlem ent that has al read y rece iv edth e ag reem en t o f th e p art ie s. Eva ns v. Jef f D. , 475 U
. S. 717 , 726 ,5

106 S. Ct
. 153 1, 153 7 ( 1986 ) (“ the pow er to ap pr ove or

r ej ec t a se ttl em en t
ne got iate d by

the part ie s be fo re tr ia l do es not auth or iz e the c ourt t o r equir e the parties to acce pt a settlem ent to which they have not agreed.” ) Bo th M al one and Am er ic anE qui ty r ec ogni ze that the pla in l an gua ge of the
se ttl em en t f

or bid s M al one f

ro m m ai nta ini ng h er

a ct iona ga ins t A m er ic anE qui ty in Ke n tu ck y fo r c l ai m s ar i s i n g o u to f t h ei r c re at i o no f al i v i n g tru s tfo r h er . M al o n e’s trust was f

unded b y her purchase of an equity -indexed annui ty from Am erican Equity . I n her pleadings and s tatem ents before the district court, Malone described th e li vi ng tru stas a“ Trojan ho rs e” fo r th e sa le of e qu it y -in de xe d a nn ui ti es . Be ca use the li vin g tr

ust is, “ in whol e or

in part , ” “ co nne ct ed

w ith ” an d “ re late d to ” the sa le of

e qui ty -i nde xe d annui tie s, the te rm s of the se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t r el ea se Am eri can Equ it y

fro m an y po te nt ia l l iabi li ty con cern in g M al on e’s li vi ng tru st . N one the le ss, Ma lon e co nte nds that the K en tuc ky sui t r em ai ns v ia

ble
. S he claim s that the plain lang uage reading of the settlem ent is trum ped by the district
co urt’ s in te rp re tatio n of

the se ttl em en t a s no t r el ea sin g c la im s c onne ct ed to liv ing tr ust s. H ow ev er , our

int er pr et at ionof

the se ttl em en t i s de te rmine d by it s pl ai n la ng ua ge , andno t b y

an y in te rp ret iv e g lo ss es pro vi de d b y th e d is tri ctco urt. See W ate rs v. In t’l

Prec io us Meta ls Co rp ., 23 7 F .2d12 73 , 12 76 -7 7 (1 1 Cir . 20 01 ). th A lte rn at ive ly , she the n a sks thi s C ourt t o f ind that the dis tr ic t c ourt wro ngl y6

ap pr ove d th e se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t. I n de ci din g whe the r to a ppr ove ase ttl em en t agreem ent, a

district court m

ust determ ine whether the agreem ent is “ fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Piam bino v. Bailey , 757 F
. 2d 1 112 (1 1 Ci r. 198 5) th (“
. . . the district court has a heavy duty to ensure that any

settlem ent is ‘ fair,
re as ona ble , and a de quate . ’ ”) ( int er na l c itatio ns o m itt ed ). T his Co urt e xam ine s a dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a

ppr ova l of

ac la ss a ct ionse ttl em en t a gr ee m en t un de r the “ ab use of di sc ret io n” st an da rd
. B en ne tt v. B eh rin g , 73 7 F .2d98 2, 9 86 (11 Cir . 19 84 ). th Thi s i nq ui ry

ev al ua te s t he fit ne ss of t he set tl em en t i n i ts en ti ret y . Cotton v. H inton , 559 F. 2d 13 26, 1332 (5 Cir. 1977 ) (“ The settlem ent m ust standor fall a s th
a whole.”) W e le av e unt ouc he d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ppr ova l of

the se ttl em en t agreem ent. As Ma lone concedes, her objec tions to the settlem ent are not sh ared by any other of her f

ellow class m em

bers. He r cr iticism s of the agreem ent are peripheral to the chief bar gains struck b etwe en the plaintiff class and Am erican E qui ty . S he a sse rt s th at

the se ttl em en t i s im

pe rmiss ibl y

br oa d be ca

use it w oul d qua sh h er K en tuc ky

li tig at ionwhic h, she arg ue s, inv olv e cl ai m s th at are ba se d on
ane nti re ly

dif fe re nt f ac tua l pr ed ic at e. W e do n ot f ind that t o be the c as e. B oththe Ke ntuckylitigation and the Strub e ac tio n c onc er n A m er ic anE qui ty ’ s m ar ke tin g
an d sa le of

e qui ty -i nde xe d annui tie s. I n a ddi tio n, Ma lon e’ s arg um en ts c ha lle ngi ngParties’ re quests for or al ar gument are denied. 1 7 the a de qua cy

of S tr ube to se rv e as le ad

r ep re se ntativ e an d th e ty pic al ity of his cl ai m s ar e wai ve d b ecau se th ey were n otrai se d b efo re t he di st ric t co urt. Se e, e . g. , A cc es s N ow , I nc . v . Sou thw es t A irl ines C o. , 385 F
. 3d 1 324, 133 1 ( 11 Ci r. 200 4) th (“ T his Co urt ha s r ep eate dly he ld that ‘ aniss ue not

r ai se d inthe dis tr ic t c ourt and raised for the f

irst tim e in an appeal w ill not b e considered by this court.’ ”) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. T hus, w e hol d th at

the te rm s of

the se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t pr ev en t M al one f r o m co n t i nu i n g wi thh e r

l i v i n g tr u s ts u i ta g a i n s tAme r i c anEq u i ty i nKe n tu c ky. Co nse que ntl y , w e gr an t A m er ic anE qui ty ape rm an en t i nj unc tio n a ga ins t M al one pr ev en ti ng he r fro m

m ai nt ai ni ng he r su itag ai ns t Am eri can Equ it y in Kentuc ky. 1 REVERSED.