Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 11-1692
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:06-cv-00293-HMH)
Argued:
Decided:
wrote
the
based
Products,
clause
on
Inc.
(Cable
contained
parties.
the
in
courts
holding
Products)
that
breached
settlement
Monster
forum
agreement
Cable
selection
executed
by
the
factual
questions
remained
regarding
another
alleged
attorneys
fee
award.
Upon
our
review,
we
affirm
the
because
the
forum
selection
clause
was
independently
was
prevailing
party,
within
the
meaning
of
that
contract term.
I.
In 2006, Monster Daddy filed a declaratory judgment action
against
Cable
Products
in
federal
district
court
in
South
in
certain
cleaners,
waxes,
and
adhesives
did
not
the
settlement
agreement
contained
provision
In
2010,
Monster
Daddy
filed
an
action
against
Cable
action)
asserting,
Products
breached
the
among
settlement
other
things,
agreement.
that
In
its
Cable
answer,
Monster
Daddy
filed
the
South
Carolina
action,
certain
car
cleaners
and
waxes
which,
according
to
Cable Products
motion
to
amend
its
complaint
to
include
claim
for
action.
The
Monster
Daddys
dismiss
the
authority
to
that
motion
to
California
dispose
jurisdiction.
found
district
court
amend,
in
South
but
denied
action
citing
of
matter
Carolina
the
the
motion
to
lack
of
courts
pending
granted
in
another
Cable
Products
tactic
in
filing
the
California
Cable
Products
failed
to
dismiss
the
California
breached
California
Monster
the
action.
Daddy
to
forum
The
seek
selection
district
clause
court
reimbursement
of
by
agreed,
its
filing
and
the
invited
attorneys
fees
failed
district
court
to
respond
awarded
to
Monster
5
Monster
Daddy
Daddys
the
amount
After Cable
motion,
the
requested.
II.
Cable
Products
argues
that
the
district
court
erred
in
unresolved
decision
factual
regarding
agreement.
dispute
which
at
party
the
first
time
breached
of
the
the
courts
settlement
agreement,
to
Cable
Products
would
not
have
under
the
settlement
imposed
by
perform
its
obligations
including
the
obligation
the
been
forum
selection clause.
Cable Products also challenges the district courts award
of attorneys fees on the grounds that: 1) Monster Daddy was not
a
prevailing
agreement,
party
because
under
Cable
the
Products
terms
of
voluntarily
the
settlement
dismissed
the
action
were
beyond
the
scope
of
the
settlement
turn.
Generally, we review under an abuse of discretion standard
a district courts decision to enforce a settlement agreement
6
and
to
award
attorneys
fees.
See
Bosley
v.
Mineral
Cnty.
Commn, 650 F.3d 408, 411 (4th Cir. 2011) (attorneys fees);
Hensley v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 277 F.3d 535, 541 (4th Cir. 2002)
(enforcement of settlement agreement).
However, we review a
is
governed
by
South
Carolina
law.
Under
South
of
550
S.E.2d
contract
299,
is
302-03
ambiguous
(S.C.
when
2001).
its
The
terms
are
Id. at 302.
the
meaning
of
the
language
employed.
Davis
v.
only
meaning
and
function
the
contracts terms.
2011).
is
intent
to
of
interpret
the
parties
the
as
contracts
expressed
lawful
in
the
language
of
the
contract
determines
its
force
and
effect.
clause
of
the
settlement
agreement,
given
the
material
Products
argues
breach
that
of
so
the
long
agreement.
as
there
In
remains
effect,
an
Cable
unresolved
the
parties
implicitly
recognized
that
disputes
The forum
See
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 880 (3d Cir. 1995).
Because the forum selection clause was drafted to address the
treatment of future alleged breaches, any claim that the clause
became
unenforceable
as
result
of
such
breach
is
See Texas
Source Group, Inc. v. CCH, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 234, 237 (S.D.
Tex. 1997).
could
readily
shirk
their
contractual
obligation
to
would
allow
party
to
litigate
that
alleged
enforcement
of
forum
selection
counsels
breach
excuses
Cable
doctrine
non-breaching
Products
is
reliance
misplaced.
partys
strongly
See id.
on
This
the
prior
doctrine
performance
when
only
such
ed. 2012).
Here, performance under the forum selection clause was not
dependent upon the performance of any other contract provision
contained in the settlement agreement.
language
of
the
forum
selection
clause
does
not
mention
any
parties
contract
Carolina law.
meaningless,
in
violation
of
South
effect
selection
if
possible).
clause
was
Accordingly,
an
independent
because
promise
the
forum
bearing
no
its
position
settlement
concerning
agreement.
the
Under
applicable
Cable
law
Products
governing
the
reasoning,
the
result
breach.
of
Yet
the
Cable
governs
the
plainly
stated
unresolved
Products
interpretation
by
the
allegations
agrees
of
choice
the
of
that
of
South
settlement
law
prior
clause.
material
Carolina
law
agreement,
as
There
is
no
Thus, to permit
to
pick
and
choose
which
portions
of
the
settlement
The
provision,
Cable
(Emphasis added.)
Products
filed
the
In disregard of
California
action
one
party
to
the
settlement
agreement,
Cable
Products,
that
Cable
Products
plainly
breached
the
settlement
11
within
According
to
the
Cable
meaning
of
Products,
the
its
attorneys
voluntary
fees
clause.
dismissal
of
the
parties
because
there
still
was
possibility
of
future
We disagree
breach
of
this
Agreement,
the
prevailing
party
shall
(Emphasis added.)
be
As
action]
was
in
violation
of
the
settlement
party
prevails
with
respect
to
particular
Thus, to qualify as
we
address
Cable
Products
argument
that
the
incurred
Products,
the
in
the
California
district
court
action.
was
According
entitled
only
to
to
Cable
award
We disagree.
to
court
costs,
reasonable
attorneys
fees,
and
all
(Emphasis added.)
We
settlement
agreement,
satisfied here.
we
conclude
that
this
nexus
was
in
the
South
Carolina
action,
resulted
were
reasonable
measures
taken
by
from
Cable
Moreover, both
Monster
Daddy
to
14
III.
For these reasons, we affirm the district courts award of
attorneys fees to Monster Daddy.
AFFIRMED
15