Full title: Arnold RISPLER, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Sheldon SPITZ…
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
No. 09-1917-cv.
Date published: May 18, 2010
Fact:
- Sheldon Spitz appealed from an order by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- Spitz’s letter to the court was construed as a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to vacate his agreement to settle the action.
- The settlement agreement had already been ratified by the court at a fairness hearing.
- The district court denied Spitz’s motion.
Issue:
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Spitz’s motion under Rule 60(b) to vacate the settlement agreement.
Decision:
- The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Spitz’s motion.
- Spitz’s unsupported allegations of lacking mental capacity were insufficient to demonstrate that he did not understand and agree to the settlement.
- Additional documents proffered by Spitz were not considered as they were not filed in the district court and, even if considered, did not demonstrate lack of capacity.
- Spitz’s remaining arguments were found to be without merit.