Platinum Luxury Auctions, LLC v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, 227 So. 3d 685

Concierge sued Platinum Luxury Auctions (PLA), Trayor Lesnock, and Kevin Vaughn for defamation and related claims based on a January 27, 2014 blog post Lesnock admitted he wrote.
The parties executed a Confidential Settlement Agreement on September 5, 2014; it required a retraction of the January 27 blog post (published September 14, 2014) and contained a Non‑Disparagement Provision banning written or verbal statements defaming or disparaging Concierge made after execution.
The case was dismissed with prejudice and the trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
Concierge moved to enforce the settlement, seeking removal of a January 2014 online article (posted before the settlement) that it claimed disparaged Concierge and was available on PLA/Lesnock websites. Concierge acknowledged it knew of that January 2014 article when the settlement was signed.
The trial court ordered PLA and Lesnock to remove the January 2014 article, finding it violated the Non‑Disparagement Provision. Appellants appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding the settlement’s Non‑Disparagement Provision applied only to statements made after September 5, 2014, and the trial court exceeded its enforcement jurisdiction by ordering removal of pre‑existing content the parties had not bargained away.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement's Non‑Disparagement Provision reaches statements published before execution of the settlement	Concierge: the January 2014 article disparages Concierge and thus violates the Non‑Disparagement Provision, so it must be removed	PLA/Lesnock: provision applies only to statements made after the agreement; the January 2014 article predated the settlement and was not included in the contract	Held: Provision applies only to statements made after Sept. 5, 2014; the January 2014 article is not covered and need not be removed
Whether the trial court exceeded its retained jurisdiction by ordering removal of the January 2014 article	Concierge: enforcement order was proper to vindicate settlement terms and protect reputation	PLA/Lesnock: court could not rewrite or expand the settlement to cover pre‑existing content the parties knowingly omitted	Held: Trial court impermissibly rewrote the settlement and exceeded its enforcement jurisdiction; order reversed

Paulucci v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 842 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2003) (court retains jurisdiction to enforce settlement but that jurisdiction is limited by the agreement's terms)
Pinnacle Three Corp. v. EVS Invs., Inc., 193 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (trial court may not grant enforcement relief beyond settlement obligations)
Muñoz Hnos., S.A. v. Editorial Televisa Int’l, S.A., 121 So. 3d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (settlement agreements are governed by contract law)
Rocha v. Mendonca, 35 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (trial court may not rewrite settlement under guise of enforcement)
Commercial Capital Res., LLC v. Giovannetti, 955 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (clear contractual language controls; courts cannot modify unambiguous terms)
Johnson v. Bezner, 910 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (order enforcing settlement must conform to agreement's terms)