Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03156/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03156-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

' ' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUAN P. CEDILLO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

United States Co!lrt (!f Appeals Tenth c1rcu1t 

JUN 151990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 89-3156 

PEPSI-COLA GENERAL BOTTLERS, INC. 

and ELMER KNAPP, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

(D.C. Civil No. 83-4218) 

(District of Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action was first filed on July 13, 

1983. In July 1985 the attorneys for the parties reached a settlement. After plaintiff objected, claiming his attorneys were 

not authorized to enter into the settlement, the trial court held 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3156 Document: 010110036216 Date Filed: 06/15/1990 Page: 1 
a hearing at which it heard testimony from the lawyers and from 

plaintiff himself. The court found as a fact that plaintiff's 

attorney had been authorized by plaintiff to enter into the 

settlement in July 1985. The court then gave plaintiff additional 

time to provide any supplemental information which might bear on 

its decision to enforce the settlement. Plaintiff filed nothing. 

On October 16, 1985, the trial court entered an order enforcing the settlement and dismissing the case. A few days thereafter, plaintiff--acting through a new attorney--petitioned the 

court to reconsider its order. After full consideration, the 

court refused to reconsider on the ground that the motion was 

untimely. Neither the order enforcing settlement and dismissing 

the case nor the order denying reconsideration was appealed. 

On April 6, 1989, nearly three and one-half years later, 

plaintiff--acting ~ se--moved to reopen the case on the ground 

that his old and new attorneys had defrauded him. He also claimed 

he did not know of the order enforcing settlement and dismissing 

until 1987. The trial court denied this Rule 60(b) motion for the 

reason that plaintiff failed to show any justifiable reason for 

such a tardy motion. 

After examining plaintiff's submissions, we conclude 

that--aside from general conclusory allegations--plaintiff has 

failed to support his Rule 60(b) motion with sufficient reason for 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3156 Document: 010110036216 Date Filed: 06/15/1990 Page: 2 
I 

~ 

his delay. Even if we accept plaintiff's claim that he was without knowledge of the enforcement and dismissal order until 1987, 

plaintiff has still failed to give sufficient reason for not filing his motion until April 6, 1989. Nor are there any factual 

allegations to support his claim of fraud that would undermine the 

court's 1985 order enforcing the settlement. We accordingly hold 

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion to reopen on the ground of fraud. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3156 Document: 010110036216 Date Filed: 06/15/1990 Page: 3