Court holds up settlement

July 30, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Even though the parties involved in litigation of a wrongful imprisonment suit want to settle after a jury already announced its award, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request to throw out the jury award to clear the way for the settlement.

Larry Mayes was convicted and sent to prison in 1980 for a rape that he was later cleared from committing based on DNA evidence. Mayes filed a suit in 2006 against the Hammond Police Department, which allegedly fudged the evidence in order to send Mayes to prison. Mayes won the suit, and a jury awarded him $9 million.

The City of Hammond and Mayes’ attorneys have since agreed to settle the case out of court for half that amount. The catch? The parties can’t settle unless there is an order vacating the jury verdict and the judgment from the 7th Circuit.

The 7th Circuit denied a joint motion July 15 to vacate the jury verdict and judgment and remanded to the U.S. District Court to determine and inform the federal appellate court if the District Court is inclined to vacate the judgment and jury verdict. The 7th Circuit has taken a firm position of denying motions to vacate opinion and judgment of a District Court decision on a condition of settlement on appeal.

In an opinion and order issued July 29, Magistrate Judge Paul Cherry from the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, denied making a decision on whether the District Court would throw out the jury award.

The joint motion only cited one 2006 unpublished 7th Circuit decision that vacated an underlying judgment because the appeal had become moot – not because a settlement was reached.

Magistrate Judge Cherry ordered the parties to file a joint brief on or before Aug. 8 setting forth the laws and facts necessary for the District Court to tell the 7th Circuit whether or not it is inclined to vacate the jury verdict and judgment in the case as a condition of settlement. He encouraged the parties to fully brief the issue of vacatur and not to limit themselves to the issues raised by the District Court in the order.

What do you think? Should settlement be a valid reason for tossing out a jury award and verdict or should parties have to meet “extraordinary circumstances” standards for vacatur as a condition of settlement on appeal, as defined in U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 29 (1994).
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT