Bello Paulino v. S & P Mini Market Corp.

Background

The plaintiff, Jose Luis Bello Paulino, wrote to the court about what he described as a settlement that would make a jury’s verdict ineffective. His January 21, 2025 letter referred to a possible “motion to vacate the judgment/jury verdict.” The opinion states that no judgment or order had been entered.

Court’s analysis

The court found it unclear what motion the plaintiff intended to file. It determined that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, which concerns requests for a new trial or changes to a judgment, did not apply because the plaintiff was not seeking a new trial. It also determined that Rule 60, which concerns relief from a judgment or order, did not apply because no judgment or order had been entered.

The court stated that the proper procedure appeared to be a motion to enforce the alleged settlement. It cited authority recognizing a district court’s power to enforce a settlement reached in a case pending before it.

Order and effect

The court directed the plaintiff to file any motion to enforce the settlement by February 28, 2025, the deadline identified in Docket No. 104. It stated that further briefing would follow paragraph 2.B of the court’s individual practices. The opinion did not decide whether a settlement existed or whether it should be enforced. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein therefore set the procedure and deadline for a potential motion but did not rule on the alleged settlement’s validity.