* At the parties’ request, the case is unanimously ordered submitted without

oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This

order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be

cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 9/19/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

BEETLE PLASTICS INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF

JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES

OF THE PLUMBING AND

PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE

UNITED STATES AND CANADA,

and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF

JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES

OF THE PLUMBING AND

PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE

UNITED STATES AND CANADA,

Local 344,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-6031

(D.C. No. CIV-95-1442-C)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, LOGAN, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
2--

Plaintiff Beetle Plastics, Inc. appeals from a judgment in favor of

defendants on its claim that defendants violated collective bargaining agreements 

these parties entered into to settle prior litigation. We exercise jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Beetle is a manufacturer of industrial pipe. Although its own employees

are represented by a different union, it needs fabrication labels from the defendant

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and

Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada (“Union”) for some jobs. In

1977, Beetle’s corporate predecessor filed an antitrust action against the Union to

resolve problems it had in acquiring Union labels. To settle the antitrust suit, 

Beetle and the Union, for itself and the defendant Local 344, entered into several

agreements under which the Union agreed to provide a Union pipefitting crew

whenever Beetle needed a Union label. The Union unilaterally canceled the

settlement agreements, with sixty days’ notice, on March 22, 1993. 

Beetle filed this suit, seeking enforcement of the settlement agreements. 

The district court held that settlement agreements are interpreted according to the

law of contracts and that under the terms of the agreements involved here, the

Union was entitled to cancel its obligations after providing reasonable notice to

Beetle.
3--

Beetle raises two issues on appeal: (1) the settlement agreements are not

subject to unilateral cancellation by either party; and (2) defendants are estopped

from unilaterally canceling the settlement agreements. Beetle did not raise its

estoppel argument in the district court, and we therefore will not address it on

appeal. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976).

With respect to its other issue, Beetle argues that a settlement agreement is

as binding as a judgment. This is not necessarily so. Unless incorporated into a

judgment of the court, a settlement agreement is “a contract, part of the

consideration for which [i]s dismissal of a[] suit.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, ___, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1677 (1994). The first court’s order

of dismissal states simply that the antitrust case was dismissed pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), Appellant’s App. at A-46, although the parties could have

asked the court to retain jurisdiction or to embody their settlement agreements

into its order, Kokkonen, 114 S. Ct. at 1677. As a result, the settlement

agreements here are enforceable only to the extent of their own terms, as

interpreted by contract law. 
4--

We find no error, and affirm for substantially the same reasons as set forth

by the district court in its thorough and well-written December 18, 1995 order.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge