2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-18-2010

Richard Silva v. Craig Easter

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-4550

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Richard Silva v. Craig Easter" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 241.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/241
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________________

NO. 08-4550

__________________

RICHARD SILVA, An Individual;

SNA, INC.; SEAWIND, INC.

Appellants

v.

CRAIG EASTER, An Individual;

SEASTAR, INC.; PRECISION DESIGN, INC.;

PAUL ARRAY, An Individual;

HORIZON UNLIMITED

___________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2-00-cv-04666)

District Judge: Hon. Petrese B. Tucker

___________________

Argued November 3, 2010

BEFORE: SCIRICA, STAPLETON and ROTH,

Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: November 18, 2010)

__________________

Terry E. Silva, Esq. (Argued)

Silva Legal Professionals, P.C.

1500 Walnut Street, Suite 700

Philadelphia, PA 19102

 Attorney for Appellants
2

Michael T. Farrell, Esq. (Argued)

106 West Front Street

Media, PA 19063

 Attorney for Appellee Paul Array

Joseph S. Mitchell, III, Esq.

1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700

Two Penn Center Plaza

Philadelphia, PA 19102

 Attorney for Appellees Horizon Unlimited, Inc.;

 Precision Design, Inc.; Seastar, Inc.; and Craig

 Easter

________________________

OPINION OF THE COURT

________________________

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:

I.

This trademark infringement litigation was initiated in 2000 and settled in May 

2004. Since then, the parties have had numerous disputes concerning performance under 

the settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement provided inter alia that defendants would deliver a 

Seastar prototype aircraft owned by defendant Seastar Aircraft Inc. to plaintiffs at the 

Chester County Airport in Pennsylvania on or before May 3, 2005. In the interim, 

defendants’ agent, defendant Paul Array, would have the use of the prototype and the 

defendants would maintain it, have it inspected, and preserve its value. As a part of this 

arrangement for the postponed transfer of the prototype, the agreement required 

defendants to make two $25,000 payments to plaintiffs on May 7 and June 1, 2004. “In 

the event of prototype delivery and acceptance” those funds were to “be paid back to 
3

Defendants.” App. at A-5. Also, in the event of such delivery and acceptance, a prior 

judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants Array and Horizon Unlimited 

would be “marked satisfied.” “In the event of breach, the judgment [would] remain.” Id.

Defendants did not deliver the prototype to plaintiffs on or before May 3, 2005, 

and plaintiffs filed a “Petition for Contempt” on June 10, 2005, seeking to enforce the 

settlement agreement. In addition to the failure to deliver, plaintiffs alleged a number of 

other breaches of the agreement and sought damages arising therefrom as well as fees and 

costs associated with enforcing the agreement. The petition asked for “judgment” in 

plaintiffs’ favor. App. at A-184.

On November 4, 2005, the District Court entered an order directing that title to the 

prototype be deemed transferred to plaintiff SNA, Inc., and that the transfer be 

immediately reflected on the records of the FAA. Ten months later, on September 5, 

2006, the District Court entered an order dismissing plaintiffs’ petition for contempt as 

“moot” because “Plaintiffs [had] acquired all rights, title and interest to the Seastar 

Aircraft” as a result of its earlier order. Despite the unqualified terms of this dismissal, it 

is clear that the District Court did not regard it as a final order and realized that plaintiffs 

still had claims before it because on the very same day, it set those claims down for trial 

on November 6, 2006.

On November 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions 

of law asserting inter alia that the defendants had failed, as required by the agreement, to 

have the prototype maintained or inspected and had damaged it. As a result of this and 

the failure to deliver, plaintiffs had expended funds to find the prototype in Florida, to 
4

store and repair it there, and to have it inspected. Plaintiffs asked for a finding that they 

had lost sales of the prototype because it was delivered late and damaged. Plaintiffs 

sought to recover their attorneys’ fees for the contempt proceeding which at that point 

totaled $71,785.44.

Plaintiffs’ claims were ultimately called for trial on November 20, 2006. No 

findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims were 

issued by this trial. On July 19, 2007, the District Court did order defendant Array to 

“pay the costs incurred by Plaintiff Silva related to [the] inspection of the Seastar 

prototype plane.” App. at A-295.

On January 27, 2008, defendant Array filed a “Motion . . . To Compel 

Compliance” with the settlement agreement alleging receipt of the prototype by “the 

Plaintiff” and seeking an order directing the payment of $50,000, plus interest. Plaintiffs’ 

response to this motion noted that there were currently outstanding and undecided a 

number of claims seeking amounts due to them as a result of defendants’ breaches of the 

settlement agreement. That response further asserted that plaintiffs had had to sell the 

prototype at a significantly reduced price because of the delay and damage to the aircraft.

On June 3, 2008, the District Court denied Array’s Motion to Compel payment to 

him of $50,000 and ruled that the “deposit paid by Defendant Array to Plaintiffs for use 

of the Seastar prototype aircraft shall be used to offset the monetary damages incurred by 

Plaintiffs in connection with the transfer of the Seastar prototype aircraft – i.e., 

inspection, repair, and storage costs, and loss in sales value.” App. at A 313. The Court 
5

then ordered plaintiff to file “an itemized list of the aforementioned monetary damages 

incurred along with appropriate documentation.” Id.

“Plaintiffs’ Statement of Damage Claims on Contempt” commenced with a 

recitation that it was being filed because the Court had directed plaintiffs to “provide an 

updated list of the damages evidence so far submitted in these proceedings.” App. at A315. Plaintiffs’ statement provided, inter alia, the following list of damage claims:

1) the inspection of the aircraft by Harry Shannon 

(“Shannon”) and the cost of the inspection; 2) repair damage 

– damage that had been done to the aircraft by Paul Array 

(“Array”) while in his possession, repaired by Shannon and 

paid by Plaintiffs; 3) Plaintiffs’ cost of tie-down fees which 

had been unpaid; 4) Plaintiffs’ cost of additional tie-down 

fees after locating the aircraft; 5) payment of Shannon’s bill; 

6) Plaintiffs’ payment of court costs associated with taking 

Shannon’s deposition; 7) Plaintiffs’ payment of the inspection

that was to have been performed upon the aircraft but had not 

been performed by the Defendants; 8) Plaintiffs’ payment for 

transfer of websites that had never been dismantled or 

transferred; 9) Plaintiffs’ legal fees and costs associated with 

the breaches and enforcement of the SACO; 10) reinstatement 

of the two hundred ninety five thousand, one hundred thirtythree dollars and eighty-nine cents ($295,133.89) judgment of 

Judge Katz; 11) reinstatement of the eighty thousand dollars 

($80,000.00) from Judge Shapiro’s litigation; 12) legal fees 

and costs to be submitted as related to these proceedings.

App. at A-318. Damage amounts were stated for most but not all of these items. 

Documentation for some was attached or was represented as having been previously 

submitted to the Court. With respect to “loss in sales value,” a declaration of Silva under 

28 U.S.C. § 1746 was attached in which he stated his opinion that he had lost 

“approximately two hundred thousand dollars.” App. at A-441. This was based on 

documentation indicating that defendants Array and Seastar had offered the prototype for 
6

sale in March of 2005 for $399,000 and the fact that Silva had ultimately been able to sell 

it for only $190,000.

As is apparent from this description, plaintiffs’ statement was not limited to 

“damages incurred in connection with the transfer of the Seastar aircraft.” Nor did it 

include documentation for all such damages.

The first of the orders from which this appeal was taken was entered on September 

3, 2008. It ordered plaintiffs to return to defendant Array within fifteen days “the sum of 

the deposit paid . . . for use of the Seastar prototype aircraft pursuant” to the settlement 

agreement. The Court found that the plaintiffs’ statement “contains neither an itemized 

list of monetary damages nor any documentation to support the damages Plaintiffs 

claim.” It concluded that “[b]ecause Plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claim for offset, 

Plaintiffs shall return the deposit paid by Defendant Array.” App. at A-4.

Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and their motion was denied on October 21, 

2008. Defendant Array was found to be entitled to the deposit because plaintiffs had 

again failed “to substantiate their claim for offset.” App. at A-3.

This timely appeal followed on November 13, 2008. In it, plaintiffs insist that (1) 

no proof was submitted by or required of Array that he, or any of the defendants, was 

entitled to money; (2) the settlement agreement did not call for the return of the $50,000 

under the circumstances reflected in the record; (3) the District Court abused its 

discretion in rejecting their tender in support of an offset; and (4) in any event, the 

District Court erred in directing the payment to defendant Array alone. We express no 

view on the merits of plaintiffs’ appeal because we conclude that we have no jurisdiction.
7

II.

Defendant Array, the only appellee to file a brief, takes the position that this 

appeal is from two interlocutory orders and should be dismissed for lack of a final order. 

On the other hand, plaintiffs, while insisting that they still had unadjudicated claims when 

the orders were entered, nevertheless maintain that they are final orders and that we have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We agree with Array.

As we read the record, the orders appealed from address solely defendant Array’s 

entitlement to an immediate return of the $50,000 payment and whether plaintiffs are 

entitled to “an offset” against that amount. Those orders determined that defendant Array 

was entitled to an immediate return of the entire amount without offset. They do not 

purport to resolve and extinguish all of plaintiffs’ affirmative breach of contract claims 

pending before the District Court when they were entered,

1

especially in light of the fact 

that the District Court did not “find . . . facts specially and state its conclusions of law 

separately” on those claims, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1). A final order “ends 

the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the Court to do but execute the 

judgment.” Mendez v. Puerto Rican Int’l Cos., 553 F.3d 709, 710 (3d Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotation and citations omitted). Here, numerous claims arising from the same subject 

matter remain for the Court to resolve, many of which appear to have been tried before 

defendant Array asserted his entitlement to a refund of his deposit. It is clear that such 

 

1 We realize that the June 3, 2008, order directing plaintiffs to file an itemized list 

of damages referred to the $50,000 payment as an offset against plaintiffs’ damages. 

However, the orders appealed from clearly held only that plaintiffs’ claims for an offset 

against the $50,000 were not substantiated. They adjudicated nothing beyond defendant 

Array’s entitlement to return of the deposit without offset.
8

claims survived the dismissal of plaintiffs’ initial contempt motion; otherwise, the Court 

would not have scheduled trial on the same day that it entered the dismissal order.

In Saber v. FinanceAmerica Credit Corp., 843 F.2d 697 (3d Cir. 1988), as here, 

we were confronted with a situation where the District Court had granted a motion to 

enforce a settlement agreement calling for the payment of money but where another 

claim remained unadjudicated before it. The order appealed from required two 

defendants to pay plaintiffs $35,000 within twenty-one days. We held that this order was 

not final and that we had no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold the same here.

This holding does not fully resolve the matter of our jurisdiction, however. 

Plaintiffs maintain that we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) as well because 

the orders from which they appeal grant an injunction. We rejected a similar argument in 

Saber. As we observed there:

A settlement agreement is a contract, and an order enforcing a 

contract is ordinarily described as an order for specific 

performance. . . . The fact that a specific date for compliance 

is attached to an order for specific performance of the 

settlement agreement does not by itself transform the 

enforcement order into a mandatory injunction. Nor is the 

specific performance order made an injunction merely by 

inclusion of an order to pay money. . . . Cf. Jaffee v. United 

States, 592 F.2d 712, 715 (3d Cir. 1979) (“A plaintiff cannot 

transform a claim for damages into an equitable action by 

asking for an injunction that orders the payment of money.”).

Id. at 702-03.2

 

2 Here, as in Saber, the order to pay money has not been enforced by a contempt 

citation. Accordingly, as in Saber, it is unnecessary to decide whether an order to pay 

money in such circumstances would be appealable under § 1292(a)(1).
9

III.

This appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

 

After the filing of this appeal, the District Court denied a motion of defendant 

Array for contempt and sanctions and stayed enforcement of the orders appealed by 

plaintiffs.