Opinion ID: 744488
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was Goldman Antonetti Released from Sanctions?

Text: 84 Goldman Antonetti also argues that three of the parties seeking sanctions from it--Four Winds, Laga, and Western Auto Supply--have already released the firm from liability. Goldman Antonetti bases this argument on the settlement agreement reached between Esso and these parties in which the parties settled the underlying litigation and released Esso and their ... attorneys from liability. Because Goldman Antonetti served as Esso's attorneys, it follows, Goldman Antonetti reasons, that the settlement agreement eliminates the possibility that these parties can collect a sanctions award from Goldman Antonetti. The district court disagreed. Because the interpretation of contractual language to discern contractual intent is a question of fact, our review is limited to a determination whether the district court's findings are clearly erroneous. PaineWebber Inc. v. Hartmann, 921 F.2d 507, 510 (3d Cir.1990). 85 The issue, then, is whether the parties intended the term attorneys in the settlement agreement to refer only to counsel representing Esso at the time of the signing of the agreement, or also to refer to counsel who had represented Esso previously. The district court held that the release--a contract--does not cover Goldman Antonetti for two reasons. First, by the time the settlement agreement came into force, Esso had already severed its relationship with Goldman Antonetti. Because the term attorneys plainly refers only to counsel representing Esso at the time of the settlement agreement, the term must not encompass Goldman Antonetti. Second, even assuming that the examination of extrinsic evidence is appropriate here either to explain the term attorneys or to show that the parties attached some special meaning to attorneys, there is no extrinsic evidence that the parties to the settlement intended it to cover Goldman Antonetti. Goldman Antonetti offers and our review of the record suggests nothing--save the language of the settlement agreement, which does not, by its terms, cover Goldman Antonetti--that would lead us to conclude that the district court's findings were clearly erroneous under any legal standard governing interpretation of a contractual term. 86 In sum, we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Goldman Antonetti is subject to some form of sanction and that $120,000 was an appropriate sanction. 87