Opinion ID: 201473
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DiPaola's Offer of Judgment

Text: 3 On April 17, 2003, while DiPaola's appeal from the state court judgment was pending in the Massachusetts Appeals Court, Fafel filed a civil contempt action against DiPaola in state court seeking enforcement of the state court judgment. On April 30, 2003, DiPaola filed a motion for summary judgment in Fafel's federal court action. Instead of waiting for a ruling on the motion, DiPaola extended an offer of judgment to Fafel on May 8, 2003, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, which permits a party defending against a claim [to] serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against the defending party for the money or property or to the effect specified in the offer, with costs then accrued. DiPaola's offer specified an amount of $150,000, including attorney['s] fees and costs accrued to date in the [federal court] case only, which amount, [i]f accepted, ... shall satisfy all claims made and relief sought by the plaintiff against the defendant arising from or related to the April 2000 termination of the plaintiff from his employment in the Middlesex Sheriff's Department. The offer also provided that, upon Fafel's acceptance, judgment shall enter in the amount of $150,000 ... in the case of Leonard Fafel v. James V. DiPaola, Individually, and in his capacity as Middlesex Sheriff [,] and ... plaintiff's claims for punitive damages and injunctive relief shall be dismissed with prejudice. The offer of judgment did not explicitly refer to the disposition of Fafel's state law claims. 4 Under Rule 68, [i]f within 10 days after the service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance together with proof of service thereof and thereupon the clerk shall enter judgment. Fafel timely accepted the offer, and DiPaola filed the requisite documents with the court on May 13, 2003. For reasons that remain unclear, judgment was not immediately entered. Instead, on May 15, 2003, the entire case was dismissed [i]n accordance with the Offer of Judgement filed by the Defendant on May 13, 2003.