Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2d 288
Jamaica.
3
The matter came on for hearing before the court on September 11, 1984. The
motion to reopen was denied, and the court ordered that the settlement be made
final. There were no papers submitted in opposition to this motion, but,
according to AA's brief on appeal, it took the position before the court that the
settlement was fair and should be "finalized."
On January 7, 1985, Allan Campbell sent a letter to the court stating that he
never agreed to the settlement, and asked that the matter proceed to trial. On
February 15, 1985, Campbell filed an application for mandamus in this court
seeking an order that he obtain a jury trial. This court denied the petition, but
remanded the matter to the district court with a directive to treat the letter of
January 7, 1985, as a motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b), and "to
permit the parties a reasonable opportunity to present arguments for and against
such a motion."
On July 19, 1985, plaintiff, pro se, submitted an affidavit to the district court
setting forth material substantiating his request for a trial.
AA's counsel, after notification from the court, wrote a letter to plaintiff dated
October 1, 1985, stating that the previous "offer of settlement" remains "open,"
and that if plaintiff persisted in his desire for a trial, he should immediately
It would appear that plaintiff's affidavit of July 19, 1985, had already furnished
this material. However, plaintiff filed another affidavit on June 6, 1986. This
was followed on August 1, 1986, by a letter from plaintiff to the Clerk of the
Court referring to the affidavit of June 6, 1986, and asking that it be treated as a
motion for a trial date. A conference in the matter was held on September 10,
1986. Plaintiff claims that the hearing lasted about two minutes during which
time he was told by the court to "stop playing a Lawyer and abide by the
settlement agreed to by the Attorneys." The motion to reopen was denied. We
have no description from AA as to what went on at this conference.
11
12
In its brief, AA asserts that the agreement was binding, was fair, and should be
finalized. Nowhere does it appear that it asserted below that the agreement was
binding, nor did it object to undue delay in taking advantage of the right to
reopen the action if the agreement was not consummated. The fact that the
court voiced approval of the settlement figure does not deprive the plaintiffs of
their right to a contrary opinion which they have repeatedly set forth in this
litigation.
13
Under the facts of this case plaintiffs are entitled to a trial of the issues.
14
Order reversed and vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
The Honorable Charles M. Metzner of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation