FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 27, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1129 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 01 18 9- CV-T-2 6- TGW MOHAMM ED HUSEIN BHADE LIA, anind ivi dua l and c iti ze n of K ar ac hi P ak ist an , MOHAMM ED FAROOQ BHADEL IA, an in di vi du al an d c it iz en of t he U.S.A, Plaintiffs-CounterD ef en dants -Appe llants , ve rs us MARINA CLUB OF TAMP A, HOMEOW

NERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AF lor ida ( F. S. Ch ap te r 720) c or

por at ion , De fendant-CounterClaim ant-Appellee.

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

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 27 , 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN Aand H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Plaintiffs Moham

m ed Husein Bhadelia and Moham m ed Far ooq Bhadelia,
w ho are br oth er s, appe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e nf or ce m en t of

a se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t be tw ee n th em

and d ef en dant M ar ina

Cl ub o f T am

pa , H om eo w ne rs A sso ci at ion , I n c . ( “M ar i n aC l ub ” )
. A f t e r r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I. BACK GROUND A
. T he D isp ute H use in B ha de lia

is a ci tiz enand r es ide nt o f Pakis tan. H is b ro the r, F ar ooq Bhadelia is a citizen of the United States of Am erica
. In199 3, H use in B ha de lia pur ch as ed

thr ee c ondo m ini um

bui ldi ngs in Tam pa, F lorida. T wo of the c ondo m inium build ings were c om

plete, but the third
wa s m erely

an open shell and con struction si te. Af ter H usein Bhadelia purchased the bui ldi ngs, his br oth er , F ar ooq Bh ad el ia , a ct ed a s H use in B ha de lia ’ s a ge nt and sol d m ost of the r em ai nin g un its in the tw o c om ple te d bu ild ing s. H ow ev er , the Bhadelias allowed the third buildi ng to rem ain an open shell andconstruction site. T he c ondo m ini um

uni t owne rs in the tw o othe r bui ldi ngs w er e upse t w ith the appe ar an ce of

the unf ini she d bu ild ing and the e ff ec t i t w as havin g onpr ope rty values. For

the next ten y ears, the Bhadelias and the Marina C lub, which servedThe B hadelias f iled an in itial two-count complaint on J une 6, 2003. We addr ess the 1 amende d complaint beca

use it contains the cla ims that went to mediation.

3 as the hom eo w ne rs a sso ci at ionf or the c ondo m ini um

uni t owne rs , pe ri odi ca lly
en ga ge d indis put es ove r the unf ini she d bu ild ing
. O n Augus t 1, 200 3, the Bh ad el ia s f ile d an am en de d c om

pla int a ga ins t Mari naCl ub a lle gin g th at the Mari naCl ub: ( 1) r et al ia te d a ga ins t the m in vio latio n of the A m er ic an s w ithD isa bil iti es A ct

and the F ed er al F ai r H ousi ng A ct ; ( 2) dis cr im inate d a ga ins t the m a ft er the S ep te m

be r 11, 200 1 a tta ck s; ( 3) im pr ope rl y pla ce d li en s onthe Bh ad el ia s’ pr ope rty ; and ( 4) f ra udul en tly r ep re se nte d th at

it ha d auth or ity

to m an ag e the c om

m on are as of

the c ondo m ini um

c om ple x. 1 The M arina Club filed a c ount ercla im seeking: (1) title to all com m on areas and am enities; (2) title to the unfini shed bui lding and all other non-develop ed land; and (3) an injunction preventing the Bhadelias from m aintaining a nuisance. B. T he S ettle m en t On July 7, 2004, the district court ref erre d the parties to court-ordered
m ed iatio n. H use in B ha de lia did not a tte nd the se ttl em en t c onf er en ce , but

his br oth er , F ar ooq Bh ad el ia , and the Bh ad el ia s’ a tto rn ey did
. T he Bh ad el ia s’ attor ne y a t the m ed iatio n w as the sam e attor ne y w ho f ile d th e am en de d c om

pla int
.4

A ft er m or e than e le ve n ho ur s of m ed iatio n, F ar ooq Bh ad el iaand M ar ina Cl ub r ea ch ed

ase ttl em en t. T he se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t i s si gne d by F ar ooq Bh ad el iaon b eh al f of

H use in B ha de lia
. A cc or din g to the te rm s of the se ttl em en t, H use in B ha de lia

w oul d r et ai n ti tle to the unf ini she d bu ild ing , but

w as sub j ec t t o ce rt ai n de ad lin es f

or the c om ple tio n of the unf ini she d bu ild ing , and M ar ina Cl ub would pay

$675 ,000 for title to the am enities, com m on areas, and two additional parc el s of land. A ft er the part ie s r ea ch ed

the above se ttl em en t, H use in B ha de lia r ej ec te d th e se ttl em en t and c la im ed

that hi s br oth er , F ar ooq Bh ad el ia , a ct ed out sid e the sc ope of his auth or ity

in en te ri ng i nto the se ttl em en t. Unable to ge t the Bh ad el ia s to com ply with the term s of the settlem ent, the Marina Club filed a m otion to enforce the se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t i n f ed er al dis tr ic t c ourt. C. He aring Before the District C ourt T he dis tr ic t c ourt c ondu ct ed an e vid en tiary

he ar ing int o whe the r Faro oq Bh ad el iaha d th e au tho ri ty to en te r int o th e se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t onbe ha lf of H use in B ha de lia
. A s w iththe se ttl em en t c onf er en ce , H use in B ha de lia

did not atte nd the e vid en tiary

he ar ing
. At the e videnti ary

hearing, the m ediator testified that he “ wa s told th at ev er y body w as r ep re se nte d [ at

the se ttl em en t c onf

er en ce ] that c oul d bi nd the5

parties to an agreem ent.” Furtherm ore, Far ooq Bhadelia testified that he acted as hi s b ro th er’s ag en t i n s el li ng un it s i n t he two co m pl et edco nd om in iu m

bu il di ng s. Faro oq B ha de lia

a lso state d th at

he a ct ed w ithhis br oth er ’ s auth or ity w he n f ili ng the law sui t a ga ins t the Mari naCl ub and whe n be ginnin g th e se ttl em en t ne got iatio ns. F ina lly , the Bh ad el ia s’ a tto rn ey te sti fi ed that “ in the pa st 1 5 y ears of
re pr es en tin g M r. [ Faro oq] Bh ad el ia , I ha d ne ve r known hi m to ne ed spe ci fi c au tho ri ty f ro m his br oth er

[ H use in B ha de lia ] to do anythi ng h e w as doi ng o n be ha lf o f hi s b ro th er.” At the c onclusi on of the evidenti ary hearing, the district court deter m ined th atFa ro o qBh ad el i a a ct edwi th i nth e s co p e o f h i s au th o ri ty as Hu s ei nBh ad el i a’s ag en t. C onse que ntl y , the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e Mari na Cl ub’ s m oti on t o en fo rc e the se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t. T he Bh ad el ia s a

ppe al
. II. D ISCU SSION W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to e nf or ce ase ttl em en t a gr ee m en t f or an abuse of discretion. H ay es v. N at’ l Serv. Indus., 196 F.3d 125 2, 1254 (11 Cir. th 1999 ). Furtherm ore, we look to state lawwhen deter m ining whether

an agent had
au tho ri ty to en te r int o ase ttl em en t a gr ee m en t. I d.Th e B ha de lia s’ re ma ini ngiss ue s o n a pp e a l, su c h a s the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ini tia l de nia l of the ir 2 motion to di smiss t he Mar ina Club’s counterc laim before sending the case to settlement, ar e without merit and not discussed f

urther. T he settlement a g ree ment resolved the entire c ase.

6 InF lor ida , apr inc ipa l i s li ab le f or the a ct s of

it s a ge nt unde r both e xpr es s an d app aren t au th or it y . Sti le s v . Gord on LandCo ., 44 So .2d41 7, 4 21 (Fl a. 19 50 ).

“ By appare nt a

uth or ity is m eant, suc h auth or ity

a s th e pr inc ipa l wro ngf

ull y pe rm its the a ge nt t o a ssum e or

w hic h th e pr inc ipa l by

his a ct ion s or

w or ds h old s th e ag en t out a s po sse ssi ng. ” I d. Inthi s c as e, the re is no d isp ute that H use in B ha de lia auth or iz ed

F ar ooq Bh ad el iato br ing the ini tia l su it ag ai nst the Mari naCl ub. F urthe rm or e, F ar ooq Bh ad el iaa ct ed

a s H use in B ha de lia ’ s a ge nt i n se lli ng c ondo m ini um uni ts f ro m the finished bu ildin gs. Finally , both Farooq Bhadelia and the Bhadelias’ attorney te sti fi ed that F ar ooq Bh ad el iaha d th e au tho ri ty to en te r int o se ttl em en t ne got iatio ns. G ive n th es e ci rc um stanc es , the dis tr ic t c our t di d no t e rr

in
co nc lud ing that F ar ooq Bh ad el iaha d th e au tho ri ty to se ttl e the law sui t onH use in Bhadelia’ s behalf, and, thus, the district court did no t abuse its dis cretion when
en fo rc ing the se ttl em en t. 2 AFFIRMED.