Rispler v. Spitz

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


  • 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.


  • Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Spitz’s motion under Rule 60(b) to vacate the settlement agreement.


  • 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.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eighteen − sixteen =