Opinion ID: 1965580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: The Motion to Vacate Judgment

Text: The plaintiffs also appeal from the motion justices order denying their motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure that was rendered in favor of the instant defendants. Our review of a decision denying a motion to vacate a judgment is limited to examining the correctness of the order granting or denying the motion, not the correctness of the original judgment. Greenfield Hill Investments, LLC v. Miller, 934 A.2d 223, 224 (R.I.2007) (mem.); McBurney v. Roszkowski, 875 A.2d 428, 435 (R.I.2005). Accordingly, a motion to vacate a judgment is left to the sound discretion of the Superior Court justice, and his or her ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Greenfield, 934 A.2d at 224; McBurney, 875 A.2d at 435; Labossiere v. Berstein, 810 A.2d 210, 213 (R.I.2002). The plaintiffs contend that the motion justice ignored evidence that other plaintiffs had entered into what the Ryans refer to as binding arbitration with various defendants and that evidence of such had not been placed in the record. [24] We see no reason why the fact that other plaintiffs involved in clerical sex abuse litigation had entered into binding arbitration would have any bearing on a justices determination of whether or not to grant a motion to vacate summary judgment. Therefore, we conclude that the motion justice did not abuse his discretion when he denied plaintiffs motion to vacate judgment.