[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-16234 FEBRUARY 1, 2006
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-80060-CV-JCP
ALFREDO RAMOS-GOMEZ, on his
own behalf and others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.,
a Florida Corporation
d.b.a. My First Steps Preschool,
NANCY RIVERA-PIEROLA, individually,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(February 1, 2006)
Before BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY *, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The Education Development Center, Inc., d.b.a. My First Steps Preschool,
and Nancy Rivera-Pierola (“Defendants”) appeal from an Order enforcing the
settlement agreement resolving the lawsuit brought against them by Alfredo
Ramos-Gomez (“Ramos”) for overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The settlement agreement required defendants to pay Ramos
$13,000 on a specified date. The agreement also provided that the settlement“shall
remain confidential” and that “neither shall disparage the other.”
After payment was not timely made, Ramos filed a motion to enforce the
settlement agreement. Defendants’ response acknowledged Ramos’ claim, but
asserted for the first time that Ramos violated the agreement’s confidentiality
provision, and thus materially breached the agreement, by telling some of
Defendants’ employees that “he had, in essence won the case.” The “evidence”
filed by Defendants to support this contention consisted of two documents: (1) a
statement from a Director of Defendants’ operation stating that she had been told
by an unnamed and unidentified employee that Ramos told other unnamed and
unidentified employees that he had “won his case” and “knew how to get money”
*
Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
2
from Defendants; and (2) a statement from Lizabeth Gallet, whose connection to
Defendants is unclear, stating that her uncle believes that Ramos “won the case”
against Defendants and that Defendants would have to “cut the hours” of its
employees in order to pay the money owed to Ramos.
The district court rejected the defendants’ arguments and ordered them to
pay the money due under the agreement. Defendants now appeal and first argue
that the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to
ordering payment to Ramos. Second, defendants argue that Ramos breached the
confidentiality provisions of the agreement noted above, and therefore any award
of money due under the agreement should be reduced because of that breach.
We review a court's decision to enforce a settlement agreement for an abuse
of discretion, See Resnick v. Uccello Immobilien GMBH, Inc., 227 F.3d 1347,
1350 (11th Cir. 2000), and we find none in this case. The district court’s failure to
hold an evidentiary hearing was not clearly erroneous as defendants never
requested such a hearing, nor was the court under any obligation to order one sua
sponte. The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Ramos’ motion to
enforce payment because the agreement does not clearly state, and the record does
not otherwise overwhelmingly indicate, that the relevant provisions of the
agreement are interdependent and because defendants have failed to adequately
3
support their claim that Ramos breached the contract.
AFFIRMED.
4