Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Settlements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals Court Weighs Request to Reopen Settlement Over Retirement-Credit Contingency
Summary
Plaintiff sought to reopen a 2022 settlement after the city’s retirement board did not grant retroactive service credit; the city argues the parties dismissed the case with prejudice and waived Rule 60(b) rights.
The Appeals Court heard argument over whether a plaintiff may reopen a previously approved settlement and stipulation of dismissal after a municipal retirement board declined to implement an element of the agreement.
Harold Licton, counsel for former Revere Police Chief Joseph Caffarelli, said the settlement agreement specifically conditioned effectiveness on both court approval and approval by the Revere retirement board that would grant two years of creditable service. Licton said the parties had anticipated the retirement-board step and included it as a contingency; the city and the retirement board’s actions frustrated that condition, he said, and Rule 60(b)(6) relief is appropriate when a settlement incorporated in a judgment cannot be effectuated as contemplated.
Matthew Hamill, representing the city of Revere and the named elected official, argued the plaintiff unambiguously filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and waived rights of appeal and Rule 60(b) challenges. Hamill noted the settlement language disclaimed any guarantee by the city as to actions of the independent retirement board and emphasized a clause that preserves the agreement even if a discrete provision is invalidated.
Counsel and the panel discussed whether the parties’ joint dismissal constituted waiver of the condition in practice and whether reopening would harm the city and third parties. Licton pointed to First Circuit and SJC decisions recognizing Rule 60(b)(6) when a material contingency underlying a settlement cannot be performed; Hamill urged that permitting reopening would upset the finality of the stipulated dismissal and prejudice the city.
The court heard argument on whether the relief sought — reopening a final judgment that dismissed all claims with prejudice — would require joining additional parties (the retirement board or PERAC) and whether monetary alternatives (an agreed sum in lieu of retroactive credit) were feasible. The case was submitted.
