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.
