Contino et al v. Frontier Adjusters, Inc. et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 42 Motion to Set Aside Consent Judgment and Determine Jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 12/28/2016. (chh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00550-FDW-DSC
JAYSON CONTINO and MAMYE
CONTINO,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FRONTIER ADJUSTERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Jayson Contino and Mamye Contino
(collectively “Plaintiffs’”) Motion (Doc. No. 42) to Set Aside this Court’s Consent Judgment (Doc.
No. 41) and Determine Jurisdiction. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion and Defendants’
Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. No. 43).

For the reasons set forth in Defendants’

Memorandum, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion.
The Court notes that the dispute here is between the Plaintiffs and their attorney. This is
not a case where there is a factual dispute over the existence of an agreement, over the authority
of the attorney to enter into the agreement, or over the agreement’s terms. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b), although uncited by Plaintiffs, is not the appropriate remedy for a party that made
the choice to settle but now regrets the decision. See Napier v. Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co., 582
F.2d 1344 (4th Cir. 1978). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside Consent Judgment and
Determine Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 42) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 28, 2016