F I L E D U
. S
. C O U R T O F A P P E A L S E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T J A N U A R Y 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 T H O M A S K
. K A H N C L E R K [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 13 32 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 81 20 0- CV-DTKH F.W .F., INC., a fo rei gn co rp or at io n, GERALD ABRAMS, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us DETROIT DIESEL CORPORATION, a Del aware co rp or at io n, JOHNSON AND TOW ERS, DELAWARE, INC., a Del aware co rp or at io n, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 22 , 20 09 ) Befo re BI RCH an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andFORRESTER, Dis tri ctJu dg e. *

Honora ble J . Owen F orre ster, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

designation.MARC US, Cir cu itJu dg e:

Pl ai nt iff s- App el lant s F.W.F., Inc. an d Ger al d Ab ram s (c ol le ct iv el y ,

“ F.W .F.”), th e o wne rs of t he M/ Y Lady Jan e, ap pe al fro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi na l
or de r co ns tru in g aset tl em en t ag reem en t b etween F.W .F. an d Def en da nt -Ap pe ll ee Detr oi t Di es el Co rp or at io n, the m anuf actur er o f th e en gi ne s o n F .W .F.’s ves se l. Sp eci fic al ly, th e d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t n ei th er p art y ha d m at eri al ly breac he d t he
se tt le m en t ag reem en t. Onap pe al , F.W .F. arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin
co ns tru in g t he set tl em en t ag reem en t b y : (1 ) ap pl y in g g en eral fed eral m ari ti m e la w;
an d (2 ) in te rp ret in g t he sco pe of De tro itDies el ’s ob li ga ti on s t o e xc lu de th e pa ym en t o f ex haus t s y st em an d p ro pe ll er m od ifi cat io ns . After c aref ul rev ie w, we affi rm . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s co ns tru ct io n o f a s ettl em en t ag reem en t d e
no vo . W at ers v. In t’l Pre ci ou s M et al s C or p., 2 37 F.3d12 73 , 12 77 (11 th Cir
. 20 01 ). W e al so rev ie w a co nf li ct -o f-l aws is su e d e n ov o. Grupo Tele vi sa , S.A. v. Tele m un do Co m

m c’ns Group, In c., 48 5 F .3d12 33 , 12 39 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). The ess en ti al fact s ar e th es e. InJu ne 20 01 , F.W .F. pu rch as edth e M/ Y Lady Ja ne , a 65 -fo oty ach t, an d p ai d a dd it io na l m on ey foranup gr ad e to 18 00
- ho rs ep owe r 16 V 20 00 M9 0 d ie se l en gi ne s m anuf actur edby D etro itDies el
. Bec au se th es e en gi ne s d idno t o pe rat e as warran te d upo n d el iv ery an d b ecau se
2Detr oi t Di es el was u nabl e to co rrec t t he pro bl em , F.W .F ev en tu al ly sue d Detro it

Dies el an d t he y ach t b ro ke r fo r da m ag es in th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a. Detr oi t Di es el th erea fte r de te rm in edth atth e p ort
en gi ne ha d ade fect , andth e p art ie s fo cu se d t he laws ui t o n t he m eas ur e o f da m ag es . Dur in g m ed ia ti on , th e p art ie s re ach edag reem en t an d jo in tl y dra fte d a
m em or an du m

of s et tl em en t (t he “ Set tl em en t Ag reem en t” ), pr ov id in g i n re le va nt pa rt: [I]t is he reb y st ip ul at ed an d ag reed be twee n sa id pa rti es th at se tt le m en t ha s b een reac he d a s fo ll ows : 1.) Detr oi t Dies el to in st al l 2 ne w fact ory bu il t 20 00 HP 16 V 2 00 0 [M9 1 e ng in es ], in cl ud in g: A. All ne w gea rs an d a cces so rie s fo r en gi ne s[ ;] B. All co st s fo r in st al l i nc lu di ng all acce ss or ie s[ .]

. . . . 4.) Detr oi t Dies el to pay fo r sh ip y ard co st fo r remo v a l o f en gi ne s, an d a ll acce ss or ie s[ .]

. . . . 6.) Detr oi t Dies el to p a y up to an d in cl ud in g $1 50 ,00 0 in at to rn ey s fees an d co s t s . I n v o ic es to be pr ov id ed [wit hi n] 60 da y s fro m Nov em be r 18 , 20 05
. 7.) D e t ro it Dies el to pa y up to an d in cl ud in g $6 0,0 00 of ex p e r t te ch ni cal fees an d co st s. In vo ic es to be pr ov id ed [wit hi n] 60 da y s fro m Nov em be r 18 , 20 05 [.]

. . . . 13 .) D etro it Dies el to gr an t a 5[ -]y ear warra nt y to Pl ai nt if f s co m m en ci ng aft er in st al la ti on an d su cces sf ul se a t r i a l of ve ss el en gi ne s[
. . . . ]
3Afte r th e p art ie s s ig ne d t he ag reem en t an d s ti pu la te d t o d is m is sa l o f th e cau se

wit ho utpre

jud ic e, th e d is tri ctco urt ju dg e d is m is se d t he cas e, bu t re ta in ed juri sd ic ti on to en fo rce the Set tl em en t Ag reem en t. As i s s ad ly comm on in m at te rs of t hi s k in d, i ss ue s s ub se qu en tl y aro se reg ard in g t he pa rti es ’ rig ht s an d o bl ig at io ns un de r th e ag reem en t, i nc lu di ng : (1 ) whe th er Det ro itDies el ’s pro m is e to pa y all co st s t o i ns ta ll th e n ew en gi ne s in cl ud edth e p aym en t o f co st s t o m od ify the ex haus t s y st em , in st al l n ew pr op el le rs , andpe rfo rm

an y ot he r work n eces sa ry

forth e Lady

Jan e to su cces sf

ul ly pa ss a se a tr ia l; an d (2 ) whe th er Det ro itDies el ha d m etit s o bl ig at io n t o p ay at to rn ey s’ andex pe rt f

ees an d c os ts . To res ol ve th es e is su es , F.W .F. ul ti m at el y
m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt t o e nf or ce the Set tl em en t Ag reem en t. The reaf te r, th e di st ric t co urt re ferr edth e m atte r to a m ag is tra te jud ge fora rep ort an d
reco m m en da ti on (“ R&R ”). Inth e R&R , th e m ag is tra te jud ge in lar ge pa rt r eco m m en de d t ha t F.W.F.’ s
m ot io n b e d en ie d. Sp eci fic al ly, th e m ag is tra te jud ge de te rm in edth atDetr oi t Dies el ’s pro m is e to pa y

forall ne w acce ss or ie s “ do es no t i nc lu de anex haus t syste m or p ro pe ll ers ,” an d t hu s t ha t Det ro itDies el ha d n otco m m it te d a n
an ti ci pa to ry

bre ach of p arag rap hs 1 an d 4 of t he Set tl em en t Ag reem en t. (Re po rt

4an d R eco m

m en da ti on As t o P la in ti ffs ’ Mo ti on to Enfo rce S et tl em en t Ag reem en t (“ R&R ”) at41 .) The m ag is tra te jud ge di d fi nd , ho wev er, b as edon m at eri al s
subm it te d s ub se qu en t t o t he fil in g o f th e m ot io n, t ha t Det ro itDies el owedF.W .F. ap pr ox im at el y

$1 6,0 00 in ex pe rt f

ees . (R&R a t 6 7.) B utth e m ag is tra te jud ge
ex pr es sl y no te d t ha t Det ro itDies el ’s pre vi ou s fa il ur e to pa y th is am ou ntof f

ees di d n otco ns ti tu te a m at eri al bre ach of t he Set tl em en t Ag reem en t. (R& R at66 .) The di stric t co urt ad op te d t he R&R i n wh ol e, an d e nt eredit s ju dg m en t fo r Detr oi t Di es el acco rd in gl y . This ti m el y ap pe al fol lo ws. I. As an in it ia l m at te r, we are u np ers ua de d b y F.W .F’s cla im

th atth e d is tri ct
co urt erredin ho ld in g tha t the Settl em en t Ag reem en t ar os e und er fe de ral m ari ti m e la w, bec au se ev enif i t d id , th e res ul t o f th is cas e wou ldst il l b e th e sa m e u nd er Fl or id a la w. It is well -es tabl is he d t ha t a c on tra ctforth e o rig in al co ns tru ct io n o f a
ve ss el ari se s u nd er n on -m ari ti m e, st at e la w, whi le anag reem en t t o re pa ir ave ss el is a fed eral m ari ti m e co nt ract . F.W .F. arg ue s t ha t b ecau se itreject edth e b oa t upo n de li ve ry (ev enth ou gh itus edth e b oa t i n i ts ori gi na l s ta te be fo re s ui ng forrep ai rs ), it s d is pu te is ov er the ori gi na l co ns tru ct io n o f th e v es se l, ra th er tha n i ts rep ai r, an d th us ari se s u nd er Fl or id a la w. This Co urt h as ha d o ccas io n t o a na lyze th e ap pl ic ab il it y

of m ari ti m e la w inHatt eras of Lau de rd al e, In c. v. Gem in i Lad y , 85 3
5F.2 d 8 48 , 85 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 8) , wher e th e se ll er o f a y ach t s ou gh t d am ag es fro m a bu y er wh o a ll eg ed ly hadag reedora ll y to ad di ti on al cu st om iz in g, b utdi sp ut edth e
ex is te nc e o f th e al le ge d o ral co nt ractan d re fu se d t o p ay th e se ll er’s ad di ti on al bi ll
. The re, thi s C ou rt r eject edth e ap pl ic at io n o f m ari ti m e juri sd ic ti on , ho ld in g t ha t: [The bu y er’s] in te nt was fo r th is ve ss el to be cu st om iz ed acco rd in g to it s sp eci fic at io ns in or de r th at th e Gem in i Lady wou ld m eet [th e bu y er’s] ne ed s. Unt il th e cu st om iz at io n was co m pl et ed [th e bu y er] wou ld no t be sa ti sf ie d as th e Gem in i Lady wou ld no t be in th e “ co nd it io n to fu nc ti on as in te nd ed .” [The Fran ci s McDo na ld , 25 4 U.S. 24 2, 24 5 (1 92 0) .] If th e y ach t or ig in al ly ha d be en in th e co nd it io n to fu nc ti on as de si red by [th e bu y er] th e cu st om iz at io n wou ld ne ve r ha ve be en or de red
. W e co nc lu de th at al l of th e work was co m pl et ed as a pa rt of th e sa le an d/ or co ns tru ct io n of a ne w ve ss el , an d th eref o re it do es no t in vo ke th e m ari ti m e juri sd ic ti on of t he fed eral co urts
. Id . at 8 51 . As ap pl ie d h ere, i t i s ar gu ab le th atth e Lady Jan e d idno t p erfo rm

“ as in te nd ed ” upo n d el iv ery be cau se th e en gi ne s d idno t p ro du ce the sp eci fie d 1 80 0 ho rs ep owe r or

reac h 2 30 0 e ng in e rev ol ut io ns pe r m in ut e. On the ot he r ha nd , F.W .F. was abl e to , anddi d u se th e v es se l fo r se ve ral y ears be fo re re pa irs were
m ad e, an d, t he refo re, the Lady Jan e arg uabl y pe rfo rm ed“ as in te nd ed .” If th e Lady Ja ne pe rfo rm ed“ as in te nd ed ,” th enfed eral m ari ti m e law app li es . W e n eedno t re so lv e th is qu es ti on to da y , bec au se ev enif n on -m ari ti m e la w go ve rn edth e d is pu te be twee n t he pa rti es , F.W .F.’s cla im s wo ul d n otbe affe ct ed
. F.W .F. ass ert s p reju di ce p rimaril y on th e g ro un d t ha t at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts are

6no t p erm it te d u nd er fe de ral m ari ti m e la w, bu t t ha t i f no n- m ari ti m e la w go ve rn ed , it

wou ldbe en ti tl edto att orne y s’ fees an d c os ts form ov in g t o e nf or ce the Set tl em en t Agr eem en t. (Se e App ’antBr. at44 -4 5; Rep ly Br. at 2 8, 3 1.) B utev enass um in g th atF.W .F. co nc ei vabl y

co ul d re co ve r fees forpu rs ui ng it s m ot io n u nd er Fl or id a la w, F.W .F. wou ldon ly be en ti tl edto th es e fee s i f itwere a “ pr ev ai li ng pa rty” in th is en de av or . See Pep pe r’s Ste el & All oys, In c. v. Un it edSta te s, 8 50 So .2d46 2, 46 7 (F la . 20 03 ) (h ol di ng in th e in su ran ce co nt ex t t ha t “ whe re an in su redsu es it s in su rer fo r co ve rag e und er a p ol ic y an d t he pa rti es lat er co nt es t wh ethe r th ey ha ve
reac he d aset tl em en t, s ect io n 6 27 .42 8 a ll ows a pr ev ai li ng in su redto be award ed th e at to rn ey s’ fees in cu rredin li ti ga ti ng th atis su e.”) (e m ph as es ad de d) . Here, ho wev er, as th e d is tri ctco urt p la in ly con cl ud ed-- an d a s we a gr ee -- Detr oi t Dies el ha s n otm at eri al ly breac he d t he Set tl em en t Ag reem en t. In fact , F.W .F. do es
no t ev enarg ue th atitpre va il edon th e m ot io n t o e nf or ce, i ns te adco nt en di ng th atit is a pr ev ai li ng pa rty sim

pl y be cau se th e p art ie s en te redin to th e o rig in al Set tl em en t Agr eem en t. Bu t t ha t Se tt le m en t Ag reem en t d idno t re so lv e th e in st an t d is pu te -- whi chin vo lv es F.W .F.’s subs eque ntm ot io n t o e nf or ce the Set tl em en t Ag reem en t -
- an d t he pa rti es de ci de dl y ha ve no t re ach eda se tt le m en t o n t hi s m ot io n. Be cau se F.W .F. is no t a p rev ai li ng pa rty in i ts m ot io n t o e nf or ce the Set tl em en t Ag reem en t, itcan no t b e en ti tl edto any att orne y s’ fees , reg ard le ss of t he ap pl ic ab le law.

7Mo reo ve r, as Detr oi t Di es el arg ue s an d F .W .F. ha s n otco nt es te d, t he rul es

of co nt ractin te rp ret at io n u nd er fe de ral m ari ti m e an d F lo rid a la w are i de nt ic al , and th eref or e, wou ldno t af

fectth e d is tri ctco urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e Set tl em en t Agr eem en t. See Sh ap iro v. As so ci at edInt ’l Ins . Co., 8 99 F.2d11 16 , 11 18 n.2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) (“ ch oi ce o f la w qu es ti on s ca n b e av oi de d i f th e la ws o f th e di ffer en t juris di ct io ns lea d t o i de nt ic al res ul ts ”). Thu s, the di st ric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f m ari ti m e la w to th e m ot io n, ev enif e rro r, co ul d n otan d d idno t pr ejud ic e F.W. F. in an y

way . II. Turn in g t o t he m eri ts of F .W .F.’s m ot io n, we re ject F .W .F.’s cla im

th atth e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t re qu ire s Det ro itDies el , whi le up gr ad in g t he de fect iv e
en gi ne s, t o p ay

forall co st s o f in st al la ti on , in cl ud in g c os ts to rep la ce the ex haus t syste m an d p ro pe ll ers F.W .F. de em s n eces sa ry forth e n ew en gi ne s’ pro pe r fu nc ti on in g. Th e p la in lan gu ag e o f pa rag rap hs 1 an d 4 of the Settl em en t Agr eem en t p ro vi de th atDetr oi t Di es el ag reedto pa y th e co st s t o re pa ir the Lady Ja ne , in cl ud in g t he co st s fo r rem ov al of t he ex is ti ng en gi ne s, g ears an d

“ acce ss or ie s,” a ndall co st s fo r in st al la ti on of t he ne w eng in es , gea rs an d

“ acce ss or ie s.” Th is lan gu ag e d oe s n ot , ho wev er, al lo w forth e te rm “ acce ss or ie s” to be in te rp ret edso bro ad ly as to in cl ud e st il l o th er s ig ni fic an t an d d is ti nc t p art s o f
8th e v es se l, s uc h a s t he ex haus t s y st em an d p ro pe ll ers . Rath er, the term

“ acce ss or ie s,” a s u se d i n t he Set tl em en t Ag reem en t, cl earl y refe rs to pa rts th atare

“ acce ss ory ” to th e en gi ne s -- in de ed , th e subs ect io ns ad dr es si ng “ acce ss or ie s” fal l
un de r th e la rg er s ect io n a dd res si ng “ en gi ne s.” Fu rth er, i n c omm on pa rla nc e,

“ acce ss or ie s” are t y

pi cal ly min oran d a nc il la ry to a la rg er s y st em , rathe r th an
se pa rat e syst em s i n a ndof t he m se lv es . 1 Noris th ere i s an yth in g h el pf ul in pa rag rap h 1 3. Th atpa rag rap h s im pl y
sa y s t ha t Det ro itDies el wil l “ gr an t a [ fiv e-year] warra nt y to Pla in ti ffs co m

m en ci ng aft er i ns ta ll at io n a ndsu cces sf ul seatri al of v es se l en gi ne s.” Un de r th e p la in la ng ua ge , Detro itDies el ’s ob li ga ti on s d o n otki ckin un ti l af te r a s uc ces sf

ul sea tri al . Not ab ly, itdo es no t m ak e Detro itDies el res po ns ib le fora su cces sf ul seatri al in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e. F.W .F. als o s ay s t ha t s in ce the Set tl em en t Ag reem en t “ m ak es no pro vi si on fo r th e o th er p arty

to pay an yth in g,” th enF.W .F. ne edno t p ay a di m e fo r an yth in g -- b utth is pro ve s t oo m

uc h. As th e m ag is tra te jud ge reas on ed : If th is Co urt were to ad op t P l a i n ti ffs ’ in te rp ret at io n, it wou ld no t on ly rewri te th e co nt ract , bu t wou ld po ss ib ly ren de r th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t to o in de fin it e fo r en fo rcem en t. Fo r ex am pl e, wou ld Defen da nt be in br each of th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t if th ey refu se t o p ay fo r th e
At oral a rgument, F.W.F. c oncede d that the term “ acc essories” could not be re ad to 1 include the pr opellers a

nd exhaust sy stem. 9m od i f i c a ti on of th e ve ss el ’s fu el syste m , th e res ur faci ng of it s hu ll , or an y ot he r work in whi ch Pl ai nt iff s, at th ei r fan cy , de em ne ces sa ry fo r th e en gi ne s and ve ss el to pa ss a se a tri al ? Thi s wou ld be un reas on ab le an d crea te a qu ag m ire of n ev er-e nd in g l it ig at io n. (R& R at34 -3 5 (c it at io ns om it te d) .) In s ho rt, we a gr ee wi th th e d is tri ctco urt t ha t th e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t una m bi gu ou sl y pro vi de s t ha t Det ro itDies el wil l p ay for th e rem ov al an d i ns ta ll at io n o f en gi ne s, g ears , andacce ss or ie s, an d n ot hi ng m or e. Andth is in te rp ret at io n m ak es go odsen se -- whi le Detr oi t Di es el ag reedto m ak e F.W .F. who le with e ng in es up gr ad edbe y on d t he ori gi na l p ur ch as in g sp eci fic at io ns , pl ai nl y

itdi d n otag ree t o p utF.W .F. ina po si ti on be tt er tha n i t
or ig in al ly w ou ldha ve be en , no t o nl y with upg rad eden gi ne s, b utwith upg rad es to ot he r m ajoran d d is ti nc t p art s o f th e v es se l. The on ly oth er s up po rt F .W .F. rel ie s o n c om es fro m ex tri ns ic ev id en ce. Howev er, “pa ro l ev id en ce . . . is no t adm is si bl e whe n the co nt ract s, as in th is cas e,
are u na m bi gu ou s.” Su m

m itCo ns ul ti ng , Inc . v. J .J. Wals h C on st r., Inc ., 56 8 S o.2 d 12 90 , 12 92 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 90 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ; s ee al so Bara ka t v
. Bro wardCo un ty H ou si ng Aut h., 7 71 So .2d11 93 , 11 94 -9 5 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App
. 20 00 ). Bec au se th e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t i s u na m bi gu ou s, the di st ric t co urt pr op erl y refu se d t o c on si de r F.W. F.’s ex tri ns ic ev id en ce o n the pa rti es ’ in te nt
. 2

F.W.F. a lso argues that the district cour t erre d in ignoring its extrinsic evidence , while 2 consideringDetroit Diese l’s extrinsi c evide nce. B ut while the cour t did consider testimony 10Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in de nyin g

F.W .F.’s cla im

th atDetr oi t Di es el ha d m at eri al ly breac he d t he Set tl em en t Agr eem en t. AFFIRMED.

reg ardingcustom and usag e, it did so only to determine whether

any thing be sides the Settlement Agree ment -- suc h as an implied wa rra nty of workma

nlike perf ormanc e -- obliga

ted Detr oit Diesel to pay

“all costs,” a s urg ed by

F.W.F. Thus, F .W.F.’s sug g estion that the district court used extrinsic evidence to construe the pla in languag e of the Settlement Ag ree ment simply fails. 11