1. Whether the district court erred in granting Defendants Derheim, Inc. and Troy Derheim’s (collectively “Derheim”) Motion to Enforce Settlement despite there being issues of fact regarding the entry into, and existence of, a binding and enforceable settlement agreement between the parties.
2. Whether the district court erred, as a matter of law, in holding it was for the district court, and not the jury, to determine questions of fact involving whether Plaintiff Rocket Dogs K-9 Aquatics, & Wellness Center, LLC (“Rocket Dogs”) expressly authorized its previous counsel to settle its claims against Derheim, and whether it was “manifestly clear” that the parties entered into a binding and enforceable settlement agreement.
3. Whether the district court erred in holding it was “manifestly clear” that Rocket Dogs gave express authority to its previous counsel to settle its claims against Derheim.
4. Whether the district court erred in holding that Rocket Dogs did not disavow the purported settlement agreement between the parties, which its previous counsel asserted she had reached with Derheim on Rocket Dogs’ behalf.
5. Whether the district court erred in holding that there was a final, and enforceable, settlement agreement between Rocket Dogs and Derheim.

1. Whether the district court erred in granting Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement without applying a summary judgment standard.
2. Whether the district court erred in determining that Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement sought equitable relief to which no jury trial right attached.
3. Whether the district court’s finding of an enforceable settlement agreement between the parties was clearly erroneous.
4. Whether the district court was clearly erroneous in finding Plaintiff authorized its former counsel to accept the settlement agreement.