RedHawk Holdings v. Daniel Schreiber, et al

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30157
consolidated with
No. 20-30515

RedHawk Holdings Corporation,

Plaintiff—Counter Defendant—Appellant,

versus

Daniel J. Schreiber Trustee, of the Schreiber Living
Trust - DTD 2/8/95; Daniel J. Schreiber,

Defendants—Counter Claimants—Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:17-CV-819

Before Jones, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
After RedHawk and Schreiber entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve a business dispute, Schreiber moved to enforce that agreement

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 12, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-30157 Document: 00515636475 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2020

No. 20-30157
c/w No. 20-30515
2
because RedHawk had allegedly defaulted on its obligations. The district
court granted Schreiber’s motion, and RedHawk appealed. The district
court abused its discretion by granting Schreiber’s motion to enforce the
settlement agreement based exclusively on arguments and evidence
presented for the first time in Schreiber’s reply brief without allowing
RedHawk to file a surreply. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand to
the district court.
I.
This case arose from a business venture gone awry between Daniel J.
Schreiber, the former CEO and director of RedHawk Holdings Corporation,
and G. Darcy Klug, the CFO and majority shareholder of both RedHawk and
Beechwood Properties, L.L.C. The underlying suit involved claims against
Schreiber by RedHawk and Beechwood for securities fraud under Sections
10B, 18, and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5;
fraud under state law; breach of contract; unjust enrichment; and breach of
fiduciary duties. Schreiber filed counterclaims alleging an unlawful
interference with his ability to transfer his shares of RedHawk stock. The
district court granted Schreiber’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing
RedHawk’s and Beechwood’s claims. RedHawk Holdings Corp. v. Schreiber,
2018 WL 4963597, at *1–5 (E.D. La. Oct. 15, 2018). The district court then
denied RedHawk and Beechwood’s motion for a new trial and motion to
dismiss Schreiber’s counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
1

In February 2019, shortly before trial on the counterclaims was set to
begin, the parties decided to settle, and the district court dismissed the case,
retaining jurisdiction to enforce any settlement agreement. The parties then
signed the settlement agreement one month later. Under that settlement
agreement, Schreiber would transfer all his RedHawk stock back to
RedHawk. In exchange, RedHawk agreed to an immediate payment of

1
Beechwood Properties is not party to this appeal.
Case: 20-30157 Document: 00515636475 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2020

No. 20-30157
c/w No. 20-30515
3
$250,000 to Schreiber and issued him two non-interest-bearing promissory
notes, each in the amount of $200,000, with the first due and payable on or
before September 6, 2020, and the second due and payable on or before
September 5, 2021.
The settlement agreement also included an acceleration clause. In
addition to a 30-day grace period following any RedHawk default, after which
“all amounts due on the Notes will be accelerated and become immediately
due and payable[,]” plus 18% interest and the greater of reasonable attorneys’
fees or 10% of the amount due, the agreement contained the following
provision:
While any amounts are due to Schreiber, [RedHawk] agrees
that if it issues any shares of any series or class for cash, it shall
use 50% of all monetary proceeds received from the issuance to
reduce the debts owed to Schreiber.
On September 16, 2019, RedHawk issued an SEC Form 8-K and a
press release showing that it had “completed the sale of $500,000 in
aggregate principal amount of new convertible notes,” which would mature
in five years and would be convertible into shares of RedHawk common
stock. It also announced an issuance of “a number of warrants . . . exercisable
[in ten years] for the purchase of an aggregate of 12,500,000 shares” of
RedHawk common stock. Shortly thereafter, Schreiber informed RedHawk
that this action triggered the settlement agreement’s acceleration clause and
that RedHawk was now in default by failing to pay him 50% of the proceeds
from the sale.
After RedHawk denied that the above transactions triggered the
acceleration clause and that it defaulted, Schreiber filed in the district court
a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. He argued that RedHawk’s
sale of the convertible notes and warrants constituted a sale of shares for cash
and that RedHawk owed him 50% of the monetary proceeds from the sale.
Because the 30-day grace period had expired, Schreiber requested the full
accelerated amount of the two notes ($400,000), plus the 18% interest and
Case: 20-30157 Document: 00515636475 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/12/2020

No. 20-30157
c/w No. 20-30515
4
the greater of attorneys’ fees or 10% of the amount due. RedHawk filed a
response in opposition to the motion, and Schreiber was later granted leave
to reply. RedHawk opposed Schreiber’s motion to file a reply and requested
an opportunity to submit a surreply brief should the court grant Schreiber’s
motion. The district court never gave RedHawk this opportunity.
The district court granted Schreiber’s motion to enforce the
settlement agreement. It first found that “convertible notes and warrants are
not a series or class of shares” triggering the settlement agreement’s
acceleration clause. Therefore, RedHawk’s September 16, 2019, sale of
convertible notes and warrants did not place it in default. However, the
district court “identif[ied] multiple instances in which RedHawk has
converted notes into equity by issuing shares”—instances which were
brought to the court’s attention for the first time in Schreiber’s reply brief.
Because RedHawk did not use any of the proceeds from these transactions to
reduce its debt to Schreiber, it was in default of the settlement agreement.
The district court later awarded Schreiber $519,495.78, which included the
entire accelerated amount due on the notes, 18% interest, and attorneys’ fees.
RedHawk appealed on the grounds that (1) the district court abused
its discretion by granting Schreiber’s motion to enforce the settlement
agreement based on new arguments and evidence that Schreiber raised for
the first time in his reply brief and to which the district court denied
RedHawk an opportunity to respond, and (2) that the district court’s ruling
relied on clearly erroneous facts and was substantively mistaken.
II.
Jurisdiction in this court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The
district court entered its order granting the motion to enforce the settlement
on March 3, 2020. Schreiber filed a notice of appeal three days later, on
March 6, but before the district court granted Schreiber’s motion for money
judgment, which was not entered until July 16, 2020. To obviate any
jurisdictional concerns regarding the prematurity of its initial notice of
Case: 20-30157 Document: 00515636475 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/12/2020

No. 20-30157
c/w No. 20-30515
5
appeal, RedHawk filed on August 14, 2020, a notice of appeal to the district
court’s entry of money judgment. It moved without objection to consolidate
Case No. 20-30515 with Case No. 20-30157, and this Court granted the
motion on September 25, 2020. The appeals arise from the same underlying
case, and we have jurisdiction over both appeals.
III.
We review a district court’s grant of a motion to enforce a settlement
agreement for abuse of discretion. Bell v. Schexnayder, 36 F.3d 447, 450 (5th
Cir. 1994). A district court’s decision to grant or deny a party’s request to
file a surreply is also reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Austin v. Kroger
Texas, L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017). “A trial court abuses its
discretion when its ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly
erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Sims v. Kia Motors of Am., Inc.,
839 F.3d 393, 400 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Bocanegra v. Vicmar Servs., Inc.,
320 F.3d 581, 584 (5th Cir. 2003)).
IV.
Generally, neither this court nor the district courts of this circuit will
“review arguments raised for the first time in [a] reply brief.” Peteet v. Dow
Chem. Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1437 (5th Cir. 1989) (refusing to entertain
arguments raised for the first time in appellant’s reply brief); Springs Indus.,
Inc. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 137 F.R.D. 238, 239 (N.D. Tex. 1991) (district
court following the “court’s practice of declining to consider arguments
raised for the first time in a reply brief”). On occasion, however, a district
court may consider arguments and evidence raised for the first time in a reply
brief without abusing its discretion “so long as it gives ‘the non-movant an
adequate opportunity to respond prior to a ruling.’” Thompson v. Dall. City
Attorney’s Office, 913 F.3d 464, 471 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Vais Arms, Inc.
v. Vais, 383 F.3d 287, 292 (5th Cir. 2004)). And while there is no right to file
a surreply and surreplies are “heavily disfavored,” a district court abuses its
discretion when it denies a party the opportunity to file a surreply in response
Case: 20-30157 Document: 00515636475 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/12/2020

No. 20-30157
c/w No. 20-30515
6
to a reply brief that raised new arguments and then relies solely on those new
arguments it its decision. Compare Warrior Energy Servs. Corp. v. ATP Titan
M/V, 551 F. App’x 749, 751 n.2 (5th Cir. 2014) (noting that courts “heavily
disfavor[]” surreplies), and Austin, 864 F.3d at 336 (finding that the district
court did not abuse its discretion by denying a party’s motion to file a surreply
because the other party “did not raise any new arguments in its reply brief”),
with Conroy v. Vilsack, 707 F.3d 1163, 1179 n.6 (10th Cir. 2013) (citing Pippin
v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 440 F.3d 1186, 1191–92 (10th Cir. 2006)
(“Our case law makes clear that a district court abuses its discretion only
when it both denies a party leave to file a surreply and relies on new materials
or new arguments in the opposing party’s reply brief.”) (alteration in
original)).
In his opening brief in support of his motion to enforce the settlement
agreement, Schreiber pointed to RedHawk’s September 16, 2019,
announcement of the sale of $500,000 in convertible notes and the issuance
of warrants as the transaction triggering the settlement agreement’s
acceleration provision. He argued that RedHawk’s “sale of convertible notes
and stock warrants for $500,000 constitutes an issuance of ‘any shares of any
series or class for cash,’” which obligated RedHawk to make payments to
reduce the debt it owed to Schreiber under this provision. He contended
further that adopting RedHawk’s interpretation of “any shares of any series
or class for cash”—specifically that convertible notes and warrants are not
shares because the holder of these instruments can only convert the notes
into or purchase shares at a later date—would lead to the “absurd” result of
“allow[ing] [RedHawk] to raise significant amounts of funding with no
obligation to reduce its debt to Schreiber,” contravening the settlement
agreement’s primary purpose of “ensur[ing] that Schreiber received the full
monetary amounts promised to him.” In addition, Schreiber attached to his
motion RedHawk’s 61-page 2019 Annual Report (SEC Form 10-K), which
reported this and other transactions. But his opening brief mentions—and
Case: 20-30157 Document: 00515636475 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/12/2020

No. 20-30157
c/w No. 20-30515
7
only in a footnote—just one other transaction: the May 2019 sale of a
$50,000 convertible note to a former RedHawk director.
RedHawk devoted nearly the entirety of its response to Schreiber’s
motion rebutting the contention that convertible notes and warrants are
“shares” triggering the acceleration provision and refuting the argument that
its interpretation will lead to the absurd consequences Schreiber predicted.
It did so solely in the context of the September 16 transaction. Further, it
viewed Schreiber’s argument that convertible notes and warrants qualify as
shares under Louisiana law as so devoid of merit that it predicted Schreiber
might raise new arguments in a reply so that RedHawk would have no
opportunity to effectively respond.
The district court then granted Schreiber’s motion for leave to reply.
And while he reiterated some of the arguments made in his opening brief, he
also raised new arguments and discussed new evidence for the first time.
First, Schreiber cited to additional transactions in RedHawk’s 2019 Annual
Report allegedly showing that holders of convertible notes converted them
into shares of RedHawk common stock. Next, he point ed to RedHawk’s
most recent quarterly report—its November 2019 SEC Form 10-Q—stating
that additional convertible note holders would be converting their notes into
shares by the end of 2019. Again, while the Annual Report detailing some of
these transactions was attached to Schreiber’s original brief, the specific
transactions were not discussed, and the SEC Form 10-Q was not attached.
Third, Schreiber added a new argument that the purpose of the settlement
agreement’s acceleration provision was “to protect Schreiber from
RedHawk’s continued trend of engaging in transactions that would dilute the
value of [RedHawk]’s stock.”
One day after Schreiber submitted his motion for leave to file his
proposed reply brief, RedHawk submitted to the district court its opposition
to that motion, directing the court’s attention to the new arguments and
evidence Schreiber used for the first time in his reply brief. RedHawk
Case: 20-30157 Document: 00515636475 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/12/2020

No. 20-30157
c/w No. 20-30515
8
maintained that it possessed additional evidence that would undermine
Schreiber’s new contentions. Nevertheless, the district court, while
accepting RedHawk’s argument that “convertible notes and warrants are not
a series or class of shares” and that the September 16, 2019, sale of
convertible notes and issuance of warrants “did not constitute an issuance of
shares” for the purposes of triggering the acceleration provision, granted
Schreiber’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. It found RedHawk
in default on the ground that its “most recent [Annual Report] and 10-Q
filings . . . identify multiple instances in which RedHawk has converted notes
into equity by issuing shares rather than paying the amounts due on notes.”
Its finding relies exclusively on the transactions Schreiber raised for the first
time in its reply brief. The district court merely noted: “RedHawk fails to
address this issue.”
The district court abused its discretion by granting Schreiber’s motion
to enforce the settlement agreement. After rejecting the argument Schreiber
made in his opening brief on the motion, the district court based its decision
granting his motion exclusively on the arguments and evidence presented for
the first time in his reply brief. It never gave RedHawk a full opportunity to
counter Schreiber’s new arguments and then faulted RedHawk for its failure
to do so. True, Schreiber attached RedHawk’s 2019 Annual Report to its
original brief, and, yes, RedHawk’s response suspected that Schreiber might
raise new arguments in a reply. But, as its name suggests, the purpose of a
response brief is to respond to the arguments made by the opposing party in
its opening brief, not to rebut new arguments that party could conceivably
make in its reply. Nor would it have been reasonable for the district court to
expect RedHawk to explain how every other transaction listed in its 61-page
Annual Report fails to trigger the acceleration provision, particularly when
Schreiber specifically relied on only one in his opening brief. Therefore,
because the district court denied RedHawk the opportunity to file a surreply
to Schreiber’s reply brief that presented new arguments and evidence—and
Case: 20-30157 Document: 00515636475 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/12/2020

No. 20-30157
c/w No. 20-30515
9
then relied solely on those new arguments and evidence as the basis of its
order—it abused its discretion. Austin, 864 F.3d at 336.
V.
RedHawk asks us to go one step further by vacating the district court’s
order and issuing a mandate denying Schreiber’s motion to enforce because
it owes Schreiber “nothing” under the settlement agreement. It contends
that the district court already properly rejected Schreiber’s initial argument
centered on the September 16, 2019, transactions—thus providing no basis
for default—and that the new arguments and evidence the district court
relied on in its order stem from a misinterpretation of the settlement
agreement and erroneous factual findings. RedHawk notes that these alleged
mistakes result from the district court’s refusal to allow RedHawk to rebut
Schreiber’s reply.
It is often said that we are a court of review, not a court of first view.
In that spirit, we conclude that it is more appropriate at this juncture to
remand to the district court to reconsider the motion after permitting
RedHawk to file a surreply responding to Schreiber’s new contentions. See,
e.g., Gillaspy v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist., 278 F. App’x 307, 315 (5th Cir. 2008)
(reversing grant of summary judgment and remanding to the district court
“to respond and offer additional argument and evidence” to arguments made
in a reply brief).
VI.
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the district court’s order
granting enforcement of the settlement agreement and REMAND for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Case: 20-30157 Document: 00515636475 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/12/2020