Jean-Baptiste v. Brazil Caribbean

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-30442
_____________________
JACQUES JEAN-BAPTISTE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRAZIL CARIBBEAN SHIPPING CO., INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana
(97-CV-1506)
_________________________________________________________________
April 10, 2000
Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This interlocutory appeal presents two issues: (1) whether the
instant claims, in whole or in part, are barred by the doctrine of
res judicata; and (2) whether the alleged settlement agreement
that resulted in Commodore’s acceptance of the Demand for Judgment
is enforceable.
A
Turning first to the res judicata effect of the consent
judgment entered into between Baptiste and Commodore under Florida

-- 1 of 3 --

1See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.79 (West 1999).
2
statute § 768.79,1 the district court, in denying Brazil’s motion
for summary judgment, stated: “Florida law is clear that a judgment
entered pursuant to an offer of judgment has no res judicata or
collateral estoppel effect as to an entity not a party to that
judgment.” After reviewing the applicable case law, it is clear
that the district court was correct in this regard. See Barnett
Bank of Miami v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 354 So.2d 114, 115
(Fla. Ct. App. 1978); Security Professionals, Inc. v. Segall, 685
So.2d 1381, 1383 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).
B
Focusing on the validity of the alleged “settlement
agreement,” Brazil argues that certain correspondence, in which the
parties engaged leading up to the entry of judgment, constituted a
settlement agreement independent of the judgment. We are satisfied
that the correspondence is no more than part of the process of
confecting an offer of judgment under Florida statute § 768.79.
Under that process, the ultimate judgment entered by the court
controls the controversy that is settled under the process provided
by that statute. It follows, therefore, that the referenced
correspondence does not constitute a settlement agreement
independent of the judgment so entered. We note that there was no
formal separate settlement agreement with duly executed releases
involved here--a circumstance that would implicate further

-- 2 of 3 --

3
consideration. Here, we simply conclude that because the “Amended
Final Judgment” entered by the court on August 9, 1995, does not
provide a release of the potential claims of Baptiste against
Brazil, Baptiste is not barred by either the correspondence or the
judgment from pursuing the current cause of action.
The judgment of the district court denying Brazil’s motion for
summary judgment should be, and the same is
A F F I R M E D.

-- 3 of 3 --