Opinion ID: 1048508
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Signatures

Text: 9 Case: 12-20496 Document: 00512398636 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/07/2013 Nelson and Muse (as well as DGP and Dallas Gas GP in their brief) argue that the district court was estopped from finding the partners to have signed the LLC Membership Interest Purchase Agreement in their individual capacities. They argue that the district court had previously concluded–and this court affirmed–that Prospect could enforce the covenant not to sue against DGP because the partners signed the agreement as DGP partners and not as individuals. According to the individual defendants, the district court could not later conclude that they signed the agreement in their individual capacities. Because they did not sign the agreement as individuals, Nelson and Muse argue that they, “individually, did not breach any agreement with Prospect,” and Prospect would have to show that Nelson and Muse forfeited their limited liability in order to hold them liable for DGP’s breach. The record does not support defendants’ contentions. The magistrate judge’s report, adopted by the district court in February 2006, found that Nelson and Muse signed the Consent and Agreement of Limited Partners, which expressly agreed to and ratified the Mutual Release and covenant not to sue in the LLC Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, in their capacity as partners of DGP (under its former name, Gas Solutions Partnership II, LLP). The report made no such finding with respect to the LLC Membership Interest Purchase Agreement itself. In that agreement, “Thomas P. Muse, a resident of the State of Texas (‘Muse’), David W. Nelson, a resident of the State of California (‘Nelson’), and Jeffrey Weiss, a resident of the State of Texas (‘Weiss’)” transferred their individual partnership interests in MNW Partners to PEC White Oak LLC. Not only does the language of the LLC Membership Interest Purchase Agreement make clear that it was between the three individuals and the Prospect entity, such a transfer could not have been on the part of DGP because DGP had no partnership interest in MNW Partners. 10 Case: 12-20496 Document: 00512398636 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/07/2013 There is no estoppel because the district court’s finding in January 2011–that the individual defendants were bound–does not contradict its previous determination that they also signed a separate document in their capacity as DGP partners.10