Case Name: Jorge MACIAS, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. FURNITURE SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-25
Citations: 16 F. App'x 6
Docket Number: Nos. 00-2075, 00-2259
Parties: Jorge MACIAS, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. FURNITURE SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 16
Pages: 6–6

Head Matter:
Jorge MACIAS, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. FURNITURE SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Appellants.
Nos. 00-2075, 00-2259.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
April 25, 2001.
Jerrold J. Wohlgemuth, with whom Rep-pert, Kelly & Wohlgemuth, LLP was on brief, for appellants.
Julian R. Rivera Aspinall, with whom Rivera Aspinall, Garriga & Fernandini, P.S.C. was on brief, for appellee.
Before SELYA, BOUDIN, and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
These appeals stem from a dispute between defendant-appellant Furniture Services, Inc. (FSI) and plaintiff-appellee Joseph Macias, formerly FBI's exclusive sales representative in Puerto Rico. When FSI terminated the arrangement, Macias invoked diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and sued FSI (along with several related persons and firms) for damages in the federal district court.
The district court, acting with commendable dispatch, set trial for June 19, 2000. In the period from June 9 to June 15, the court attempted to broker a settlement. The judge believed that his efforts had borne fruit, and, accordingly, entered a judgment of dismissal. The scheduled trial did not transpire.
FSI promptly moved to vacate the judgment. Macias acquiesced and urged the court to restore the case to the trial calendar. The district judge nonetheless denied the. motion to vacate.
We have carefully considered the record, the parties' briefs, and the attorneys' statements during oral argument. We are persuaded that the district court, in good faith, misunderstood the representations of FSI's counsel, and that the court therefore entered judgment based on a mistaken premise. A judgment resting on a clear mistake of fact, seasonably called to the trial court's attention, cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand the case for trial.
Vacated and remanded. No costs.