Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
64. Should the court grant the motion?
Fifteen months after the court entered a judgment dismissing the employee's claim with prejudice, the employee learned that the payments did not constitute earnable salary under state law. The employee promptly moved to reopen the judgment on the ground of mistake.
An employee was fired after working for a state agency for 29 years. The employee sued the agency in federal court for employment discrimination. The employee agreed with the agency to settle the action in return for 12 monthly settlement payments. The agreement, however, was based on the employee's mistaken assumption that the settlement payments would constitute «earnable salary» under state law, entitling the employee to retire with 30 years of service at a higher pension rate.
This is a last question in category
« Go to questions from category MotionsComments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. In appropriate circumstances, a court may grant relief under FRCP 60(b)(1) for «mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.» But in this case, the motion for mistake was untimely because it was not filed within 12 months of the judgment being entered as the Rule requires.
C is incorrect. Unjust enrichment is not part of the analysis. The court should deny the motion because it was filed more than one year after entry of judgment and is, therefore, time barred.
D is incorrect. The court should deny the motion because it was filed more than one year after entry of judgment. The one-year limit applies even if the party moves promptly after learning of the mistake for which relief would be sought.