Sealver SAS v. Jetskiboat USA Inc. et al

Filing 67

ORDER granting 64 Motion to Enforce Judgment by default in accordance with S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(1). Plaintiff shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Defendants are entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with their efforts to enforce the Settlement Agreement and shall submit a motion for attorney's fees and costs within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Signed by Judge David S. Leibowitz See attached document for full details. (lsk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 9:23-cv-81091-LEIBOWITZ/REINHART
SEALVAR SAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JETSKI BOAT USA INC., et al .,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 64], filed on October 1, 2024. The deadline to file a response
to the Motion was due on October 15, 2024, but Plaintiff failed to file a response. On October 28,
2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Plaintiff to show cause by November 6,
2024 why the Motion should not be granted by default pursuant to Rule 7.1(c)(1) of the Local Rules
for the Southern District of Florida. [ECF No. 66]. Alternatively, Plaintiff could respond to the
Motion by the same date. [Id.]. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause
or to the Motion. The Court, having considered the Motion and being fully advised, will grant the
Motion.
On June 21, 2024, Defendants and Plaintiff executed a Confidential Settlement Agreement
and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”). [ECF No. 64-1]. The Settlement Agreement provides
that Plaintiff was to provide a settlement payment amount of $45,000.00 in exchange for Defendants
to return, transfer, and/or destroy the boat molds and parts. [ECF No. 64 ¶ 3; ECF No. 64-1 ¶ 2].
The Settlement Agreement allows Plaintiff to reduce that amount by $10,000.00 for a related payment

Defendants made to EZ Trailers on Defendants’ behalf. [ECF No. 64-1 ¶ 2]. Thus, what is due and
owed to Plaintiff is $35,000.00 (the “Settlement Payment”). Defendants completed their undertakings
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement by delivering the molds and boat parts. [ECF No. 64 ¶ 4].
However, Plaintiff did not remit the Settlement Payment to Defendants within 30 days of taking
possession of the molds and boat parts as required by the Settlement Agreement. [ECF No. 64-1].
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, Defendants sent Plaintiff a notice to cure its breach of
the Settlement Agreement on August 24, 2024, giving Plaintiff until September 23, 2024, to cure its
breach. [ECF No. 64 ¶¶ 9, 10]. Plaintiff failed to cure its breach, so Defendants filed this Motion.
Settlement agreements are favored in the Eleventh Circuit as a means of conserving judicial
resources. Murchison v. Grand Cypress Hotel Corp., 13 F.3d 1483, 1486 (11th Cir. 1994). “[D]istrict courts
have inherent authority, deriving from their equity power, to enforce settlement agreements.” Hensley
v. Alcon Labs, Inc., 277 F.3d 535, 540 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Millner v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 643 F.2d
1005, 1009 (4th Cir. 1981)). When a district court approves settlement and retains jurisdiction over
the agreement, it may thereafter enforce the terms of the agreement. American Disability Association,
Inc. v. Chmielarz, 289 F.3d 1315, 1320 (11th Cir. 2002).
Rule 7.1(c)(1) of the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida requires that “each party
opposing a motion shall file and serve an opposing memorandum of law no later than fourteen (14)
days after service of the motion. Failure to do so may be deemed sufficient cause for granting the
motion by default.” In this case, the time for filing a response to the Motion has passed, and Plaintiff
has not served a response.
The parties in this case entered into an agreement, and the Court retained jurisdiction over
this action and the parties for the sole purpose of enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
[ECF No. 59]. Defendants now request that the Court exercise its authority to enforce the Settlement
Agreement. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition to the Motion despite this
2

Court’s Order to Show Cause. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond should be
deemed sufficient cause for granting the Motion by default pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(1). See
Aldar Tobacco Grp., LLC v. Am. Cigarette Co., Inc., No. 08-62018-CIV, 2016 WL 9582830, at *2 (S.D.
Fla. May 18, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 08-62018-CIV, 2016 WL 9582831 (S.D. Fla.
June 8, 2016).
In the Motion, Defendants also request attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with
their efforts to enforce the Settlement Agreement. [ECF No. 64]. The Settlement Agreement
provides that “[i]n the event either Party seeks relief from the Court to enforce the Agreement, the
prevailing Party in such enforcement proceeding shall be entitled to recover, in addition to all other
remedies, all reasonable costs and expenses, including its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, incurred
in connection with such a proceeding, as well as the costs related to this Agreement.” [ECF No. 641 ¶ 13]. Thus, the Court also finds that Defendants are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs incurred
in connection with their efforts to enforce the Settlement Agreement.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [ECF No. 64] is
GRANTED by default in accordance with S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(1). Plaintiff shall comply with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement. Defendants are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs
incurred in connection with their efforts to enforce the Settlement Agreement and shall submit a
motion for attorney’s fees and costs within fourteen (14) days of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on November 21, 2024.

cc:

counsel of record
3