Case Name: AT & T CORP., a New York Corporation, Plaintiff Counter-Defendant Appellee, v. US DATA AUTHORITY, INC., a New York Corporation, Defendant Counter-Claimant Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-08
Citations: 179 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 05-13524
Parties: AT & T CORP., a New York Corporation, Plaintiff Counter-Defendant Appellee, v. US DATA AUTHORITY, INC., a New York Corporation, Defendant Counter-Claimant Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 179
Pages: 680–681

Head Matter:
AT & T CORP., a New York Corporation, Plaintiff Counter-Defendant Appellee, v. US DATA AUTHORITY, INC., a New York Corporation, Defendant Counter-Claimant Appellant.
No. 05-13524
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 8, 2006.
Wendy F. Lumish, Carlton, Fields, Miami, FL, Robert E. Biasotti, Carlton Fields, Saint Petersburg, FL, for Plaintiff Counter-Defendant Appellee.
Norman Malinski, Attorney at Law, Miami, FL, for Defendant Counter-Claimant Appellant.
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this case, the district court, in an order entered January 7, 2003, Record Vol 1, at Tab 48, dismissed Counts II, III, and IV of U.S. Data's amended counterclaim— each count based on tort law — and left standing for further consideration Count I, alleging breach of contract. Then, in an order entered June 7, 2005, id. at Tab 74, granted AT & T's motion for summary judgment on Count I on the ground that the parties had settled U.S. Data's breach-of-contract claims.
U.S. Data now appeals, challenging the district court's orders of January 7, 2003, and June 7, 2005. We find no merit in its appeal. The district court properly dismissed Counts II, III, and IV for the reasons stated in its January 7, 2003 order. As for Count I, we find no error in the court's determination, in its June 7, 2005 order, that the parties had settled U.S. Data's breach of contract claims; nor do we find an abuse of discretion in the court's decision to enforce the settlement.
AFFIRMED.