Mobile Telecommunications Co. v. Mones

D.C. Circuit

Mobile Telecommunications Co. v. Mones

269 F. App'x 3

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 2008

DocketNo. 07-7098

StatusPublished

This text of 269 F. App'x 3 (Mobile Telecommunications Co. v. Mones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mobile Telecommunications Co. v. Mones, 269 F. App'x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

This appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was presented to the court and briefed and argued by counsel. The court has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(b). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

The issue on appeal is the meaning of the 2003 Agreed Judgment. Because the document was drafted by Mones, we construe any ambiguous provisions against him. See, e.g., Cole v. Burns Int'l Svcs., 105 F.3d 1465, 1486 (D.C.Cir.1997). We conclude that the Agreed Judgment does not incorporate the terms of the Amended Note in their entirety, and we therefore find no legal error in the district court’s methodology for allocating payments. The only remaining question is whether there was clear error in the district court’s factual finding that the amount due to Mones under the Agreed Judgment had already been paid in full, whether or not the judgment “in the amount of $287,166.68, plus interest” is limited by the recitation that “Mones is only entitled to receive a total of $500,000 in net principal payments.” We find no such error.

The Clerk is directed to withhold the issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41(a)(1).

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

JUDGMENT

This appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was presented to the court and briefed and argued by counsel. The court has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(b). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

The issue on appeal is the meaning of the 2003 Agreed Judgment. Because the document was drafted by Mones, we construe any ambiguous provisions against him. See, e.g., Cole v. Burns Int'l Svcs., 105 F.3d 1465, 1486 (D.C.Cir.1997). We conclude that the Agreed Judgment does not incorporate the terms of the Amended Note in their entirety, and we therefore find no legal error in the district court’s methodology for allocating payments. The only remaining question is whether there was clear error in the district court’s factual finding that the amount due to Mones under the Agreed Judgment had already been paid in full, whether or not the judgment “in the amount of $287,166.68, plus interest” is limited by the recitation that “Mones is only entitled to receive a total of $500,000 in net principal payments.” We find no such error.

The Clerk is directed to withhold the issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41(a)(1).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 F. App'x 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mobile-telecommunications-co-v-mones-cadc-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack