Chen v. Cayman Arts, Inc et al

Filing 237

ORDER denying 227 Motion to Strike and Vacate the Alleged Settlement Agreement and the Stipulation of Dismissal and to further Stay Enforcement of the Alleged Settlement Agreement, by Scott R Steele. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 1/11/2012. (awe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 10-80236-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
CAREY CHEN,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
CAYMAN ARTS, INC., a Florida corporation
and SCOTT R. STEELE, an individual,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,
v.
FISHER BLUE WATER GALLERIES, LLC, et al.,
Third-Party Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND VACATE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Scott R. Steele’s “Motion to
Strike and Vacate the Alleged Settlement Agreement and the Stipulation of Dismissal
and to Further Stay Enforcement of the Alleged Settlement Agreement” [DE 227]. The
Court has considered the Motion, Plaintiff Carey Chen’s Response [DE 233], and the
related filings, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Mr. Steele has not filed a
Reply, and the time for doing so has passed.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 12, 2010, Plaintiff Carey Chen filed this action. Complaint [DE 1].
He brought a variety of claims relating to his employment with Defendants Cayman
Arts, Inc. (“Cayman Arts”) and Cayman Arts’ President and Chief Executive Officer,
Scott R. Steele. See Amended Complaint [DE 22]. On August 30, 2010, Cayman Arts

filed a Counterclaim [DE 51 at 1-15] against Mr. Chen and a Third-Party Complaint [DE
51 at 16-27] against the Third-Party Defendants Fisher Blue Water Galleries, LLC,
Monique Comfort, and Gray Ingram (collectively, “Third-Party Defendants”).
On September 15, 2011, the day that trial was set to begin, the parties
announced in open Court that they had settled this litigation. See Status Report Order
[DE 205]. Per the terms of the agreement and the representations made in open Court,
Mr. Chen and Cayman Arts, through their counsel, were to file and serve paperwork
dismissing the entire litigation with prejudice. Id. at 1. On September 28, 2011, the
parties filed their Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice [DE 208] and Motion for
Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice [DE 207]. The same day, the
Court entered an Amended Order of Dismissal with Prejudice [DE 210], approving the
Joint Stipulation for Dismissal and closing the case.
II. MOTION TO STRIKE
On or about December 9, 2011, Mr. Steele, acting pro se, filed the instant
“Motion to Strike and Vacate the Alleged Settlement Agreement and the Stipulation of
Dismissal and to Further Stay Enforcement of the Alleged Settlement Agreement.” In
his Motion, Mr. Steele argues that the Settlement Agreement is void and unenforceable
because “Steele and Cayman were misled by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant’s counsel that
all parties had agreed to execute the alleged Settlement Agreement as represented and
Steele was never informed that the Third-Party Defendants had not in fact executed the
Settlement Agreement the next day prior to the scheduled hearing before the Court as
agreed upon and a material inducement to Steele to consider and execute same.” Mot.
at 4. Additionally, Mr. Steele argues that, during discovery, Mr. Chen concealed
2

evidence that would have supported Cayman Arts’ and/or Steele’s defenses and
claims. Id. at 5.1 Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Mr.
Steele requests that the Court strike the parties’ Settlement Agreement, vacate its
Amended Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, stay any enforcement of the Settlement
Agreement, hold an evidentiary hearing, and reset this case for trial. See Mot. at 2.
Rule 60(b) provides the following grounds for relief from a final judgment, order,
or proceeding:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on
an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Mr. Steele requests relief under parts (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6).
See Mot. at 9.
In support of his Motion, Mr. Steele argues first, that the Court entered its
Amended Order of Dismissal with Prejudice by mistake. Mot. at 10 ¶ 1. The Court
assures Mr. Steele that the Order was not entered by mistake. Rather, as the Order
1

Mr. Steele also complains about his counsel’s allegedly inadequate
representation. The Court provided Mr. Steele with more than enough time to engage
new counsel in this matter, and ultimately permitted counsels’ withdrawal. See Order
Granting Motions to Withdraw [DE 228]. Mr. Steele now proceeds pro se.
3

itself states, the Court entered the Order after consideration of the applicable filings and
the entire record in this case. See Amended Order of Dismissal with Prejudice at 1.
Second, Mr. Steele argues that the Settlement Agreement is void and
unenforceable because the Third-Party Defendants never signed the agreement. Mot.
at 10 ¶¶ 2, 5. He also argues that Mr. Chen’s counsel misrepresented that the
Settlement Agreement was fully executed. Id. at 10-11 ¶ 6. Mr. Steele is mistaken, as
evidenced by the fully executed Settlement Agreement, and the emails concerning the
execution of the Settlement Agreement. See Settlement Agreement [DE 233-1];
9/14/2011 Email [DE 233-2]; 9/21/2011 Email [DE 233-3]. The Settlement Agreement
shows that Mr. Chen and Mr. Steele signed the agreement on September 14, 2011,
Third-Party Defendant Gray Ingram signed on September 17, 2011, and Third-Party
Defendant Monique Comfort, on behalf of herself and Fisher Blue Water Galleries, LLC,
signed on September 21, 2011. See id. at 6-7. Though not all parties signed the
document the same day, the record shows that all parties had agreed to the Settlement
Agreement by 10:59 p.m. on September 14, 2011. See 9/14/2011 Email. One week
later, on September 21, 2011, the Third-Party Defendants’ counsel emailed Mr. Chen’s
and Mr. Steele’s counsel to inform them that he was in the process of obtaining the final
signature that day or the next. See 9/21/2011 Email. Importantly, Mr. Steele suffered
no harm or prejudice due to the one-week gap between signatures. Further, the oneweek gap did not constitute a breach of any material terms in the Settlement
Agreement, and the parties complied with Paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement
when they filed their Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice [DE 208] and Motion
for Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice [DE 207] on September 28,
4

2011, within five business days of the final execution of the Settlement Agreement.
See Settlement Agreement ¶ 8 (requiring the filing of dismissal paperwork within five
business days of the execution of the Settlement Agreement).
Third, Mr. Steele contends that his counsel was not authorized to execute the
Stipulation of Dismissal. Id. at 10 ¶ 3. As the Court fully explained at the hearing on
September 15, 2011, as long as Mr. Steele and Cayman Arts remained represented by
counsel, and due to the fact that Cayman Arts was a corporate entity and could not
proceed pro se, counsel would have to execute the Stipulation of Dismissal. Further,
Mr. Steele had already agreed to dismiss the entire litigation with prejudice within five
days of the execution of the settlement agreement, see Settlement Agreement ¶ 8, so
counsel was acting pursuant to Mr. Steele’s own agreement.
Fourth, Mr. Steele argues that, during discovery, Mr. Chen concealed evidence
that would have supported Cayman Arts’ and/or Steele’s defenses and claims. Mot. at
10 ¶ 4. Mr. Chen represents that he did not conceal any such evidence. See Resp. at
5. Mr. Chen further indicates that Mr. Steele was already in possession of certain
evidence that he claims Mr. Chen withheld. Id. Additionally, as Mr. Chen notes, Mr.
Steele had ample time to move to compel discovery before the discovery deadline on
June 10, 2011, and he did not do so. See id. at 5-6.
Finally, Mr. Steele claims that he was denied due process because he was not
represented by counsel of record. Id. at 11 ¶ 7. This claim is meritless. Mr. Steele was
in fact represented by counsel of record up until December 9, 2011. See Order
Granting Motions to Withdraw. Twice before then, the Court denied counsels’ requests
to withdraw, see Orders Denying Withdrawal [DE’s 203, 193], ensuring that Mr. Steele
5

and Cayman Arts had counsel of record through the trial date, and then through the
execution of the Settlement Agreement and the dismissal of the case. The Court only
permitted withdrawal after the case was closed. See Order Granting Motions to
Withdraw at 2. Further, Mr. Steele has been free to retain new counsel at any time,
including after the case was closed, but he has not done so. Mr. Steele has not
suffered any violation of his due process rights during the course of this litigation.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Mr. Steele has not demonstrated
any basis under Rule 60(b) to strike the settlement agreement. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Scott R. Steele’s “Motion to Strike
and Vacate the Alleged Settlement Agreement and the Stipulation of Dismissal and to
Further Stay Enforcement of the Alleged Settlement Agreement” [DE 227] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, on this 11th day of January, 2012.

Copies provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF
Pro se parties via regular CM/ECF mail

6