United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
LAWRENCE KING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant Chubb
Custom Insurance Company ("Chubb's) Amended Motion
for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE
3), filed November 3, 2017.
Defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis that
Plaintiff is attempting to re-litigate a lawsuit that was
previously resolved by way of a Confidential Mutual Release
and Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement.")
The Defendant argues that as a result of the settlement, the
Plaintiff agreed to waive and release any and all claims that
it has now or may have in the future against Chubb related in
any way to the damages alleged by Plaintiff concerning claim
number WKFC-5787A9. The Plaintiff, in turn, disputes that it
agreed to waive and release any and all claims against Chubb
related to the damages concerning claim number WKFC-5787A9.
The Plaintiff argues that the underlying lawsuit and
Settlement Agreement erroneously combined aspects of two
claims that was overlooked by both parties.
judgment is appropriate where the pleadings and supporting
materials establish that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fat and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
Summary judgment "is properly regarded not as a
disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral
part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed to
secure the just, speedy[, ] and inexpensive determination of
every action." Pace v. Capobianco, 283 F.3d
1275, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is appropriate
unless there is a genuine issue of fact for trial. Agee
v. Porter, 216 Fed.Appx. 837, 840 (11th Cir. 2007).
"For factual issues to be considered genuine, they must
have a real basis in the record." Mize v. Jefferson
City Bd. of Educ, 93 F.3d 739, 742 (11th Cir. 1996). In
opposing a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party
"must show specific facts to support that there is a
genuine dispute." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The nonmoving party may not
rely on the pleadings, but rather must demonstrate a genuine
issue for trial through affidavits, depositions,
interrogatory answers, and admissions. Celotex, 477
U.S. 323-24. The existence of a "mere scintilla" of
evidence in support of the nonmoving party's position is
insufficient; there must be evidence on which the finder of
fact could reasonably find for the moving party.
Nat'l Cas. Co. v. Pickens, 582 Fed.Appx. 839,
840-41 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Walker v. Darby,
911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990)).
review of the facts and legal arguments, the undersigned
finds persuasive and adopts Defendant's legal arguments
in support of its motion for summary judgment, which stand
unrebutted by Plaintiff. The language of the Settlement
Agreement is unequivocal. The Plaintiff asks the Court to set
aside the Settlement Agreement due to "mutual mistake,
" but offers no evidence or argument to support its
position that the parties agreed to enter into a settlement
that is different than what is contained in the Settlement
Agreement. Rather, the basis of Plaintiff s motion is its
representative's unilateral belief that the underlying
lawsuit filed against Chubb related to an entirely different
claim. In short, the affidavit presented by the Plaintiff
presents no evidence of a mutual mistake that would allow for
the serious remedy of reformation or recession of a mutually
agreed settlement agreement that was negotiated with the
assistance of well-trained and sophisticated counsel.
summary judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant Chubb
and against Plaintiff Ean Properties, Inc.
it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that
Defendant Chubb Custom Insurance Company's Motion for
Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law
(DE 3) be, and the same is, hereby GRANTED.
The Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint (DE 6) is hereby
DENIED. All pending motions are denied as
moot. The Clerk shall Close this case.
AND ORDERED in Chambers at James Lawrence King
United States Courthouse, in Miami, Florida, this 17 day of