On July 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a joint motion to vacate orders pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where a settlement agreement was made contingent on the vacatur being granted. This decision may afford parties an opportunity to reach a settlement agreement in federal court where one did not seem feasible.
In Hartford Casualty Insurance et al. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance et al., the Eleventh Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida abused its discretion in denying the motion to vacate because it misapplied the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal decision — U.S. Bancorp Mortgage v. Bonner Mall Partnership.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
