First Class Coach & Equipment, Inc. v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

Eleventh Circuit

First Class Coach & Equipment, Inc. v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

209 F. App'x 922

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 2006

Docket06-11653

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 209 F. App'x 922 (First Class Coach & Equipment, Inc. v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First Class Coach & Equipment, Inc. v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 209 F. App'x 922 (11th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. We agree with the district court that the relevant provision of the Florida Motor Vehicle Licensing Act is not applicable to the buses involved here; we agree that deference is due to the agency decision to the same effect. We also agree that plaintiffs common law claims are barred by the release. Because plaintiff has not made a claim that the defendant has breached the territorial or other provisions of the 2003 agreement, and because plaintiffs claims all arise out of, or are in connection with, alleged violations of previous agreements, we conclude that the claims are barred by the release. Finally, because plaintiff has made no persuasive argument that the release is unconscionable, we also agree with the district court’s rejection of that claim.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. We agree with the district court that the relevant provision of the Florida Motor Vehicle Licensing Act is not applicable to the buses involved here; we agree that deference is due to the agency decision to the same effect. We also agree that plaintiffs common law claims are barred by the release. Because plaintiff has not made a claim that the defendant has breached the territorial or other provisions of the 2003 agreement, and because plaintiffs claims all arise out of, or are in connection with, alleged violations of previous agreements, we conclude that the claims are barred by the release. Finally, because plaintiff has made no persuasive argument that the release is unconscionable, we also agree with the district court’s rejection of that claim.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 F. App'x 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-class-coach-equipment-inc-v-thomas-built-buses-inc-ca11-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack