Court Opinion

ID: 988396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 22:51:49.320954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:54.315371
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOSEE JEAN-BART,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                  No. 95-2427
WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY
COMMISSION,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-94-1841-AW)

Submitted: November 28, 1995

Decided: January 31, 1996

Before HALL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Josee Jean-Bart, Appellant Pro Se. Sheila Day Collins, WASHING-
TON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION, Laurel, Maryland,
for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Josee Jean-Bart appeals from the district court's order denying as
untimely her motion to reopen proceedings in her civil action, in
which she alleged that Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
("WSSC") failed to promote her based on her race, gender, and
national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994), and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (1988). Because we find that Jean-Bart's motion was timely
filed, we vacate the district court's order and remand for further con-
sideration of whether Jean-Bart alleged sufficient cause to reopen the
proceedings.

The district court dismissed the action under D. Md. Loc. R. 111.1,
after being notified that the parties had reached a settlement. The
order stated that "[t]he entry of this order is without prejudice to the
right of a party to move for good cause shown to reopen the action
if settlement is not consummated. If no party moves to reopen, the
dismissal shall be with prejudice." The court issued the settlement
order on May 3, 1995, and entered it on the docket on May 8, 1995.

On July 5, 1995, Jean-Bart filed pro se a motion for jury trial and
for an extension of time during which to prepare for trial. She stated
that "[a]fter reviewing the terms of the settlement, [she] realize[d] that
she can not [sic] go along with the terms of the settlement." The dis-
trict court denied her motion, finding that the sixty-day period during
which a party could move to reopen the proceedings had expired as
of July 3, 1995, she failed to show good cause for filing the motion
out of time, and the action was dismissed with prejudice.

Although the district court concluded that the sixty-day period
began to run on May 3, 1995--the date it issued the settlement order
--we find that the settlement order was a "judgment" within the

                     2
meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Thus, Jean-Bart had sixty days from
May 8, 1995--the date the district court entered the settlement order
on its docket--to file her motion to reopen the proceedings. Jean-
Bart's July 5 motion therefore was timely filed. Because the district
court denied the motion to reopen proceedings solely upon the finding
that Jean-Bart failed to show good cause for filing the motion out of
time, the court did not reach the question of whether she alleged suffi-
cient cause to reopen the proceedings. Accordingly, we vacate the dis-
trict court's order and remand the case for further consideration of
Jean-Bart's motion to reopen.

We deny WSSC's motion to strike and dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                    3