Opinion
Case No. 3:10-cv-718-J-32MCR
09-03-2015
CHRISTOPHER A. BERMAN, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS KAFKA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
On July 17, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit issued its mandate in this case, affirming this Court's decision to enforce the terms of the parties' stipulated settlement agreement. See Mandate, Doc. 137. Pro se plaintiff Christopher Berman sought further review with the United States Supreme Court, which denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. See Doc. 138. Berman then filed a motion to vacate the settlement (Doc. 139) which is now before the Court. Defendants Thomas Kafka and Julie Kafka filed a response in opposition (Doc. 140).
Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2)(3) and (6), Berman asks the Court to set aside the order enforcing the settlement agreement on the grounds that he has new evidence of fraud in the inducement and fraud on the Court by the Kafkas. However, the supposed evidence of fraud Berman raises is not new; in fact, it is the same issue he has repeatedly pursued and which this Court and the Eleventh Circuit have already rejected. See Order, Doc. 125 at 2; Berman v. Kafka, No. 12-12839 at 6 (11th Cir. May 9, 2013). Berman is barred from relitigating issues that have already been decided on appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 429 F.3d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir. 2005). Berman's Motion to Vacate the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 139) is denied.
The Kafkas raised other potentially meritorious reasons why relief under Rule 60 is not available here, but the Court need not address them to decide the motion. Berman's motion for leave to file a reply (Doc. 141) in which he wished to address some of these other grounds and reargue other points is denied. --------
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 3rd day of September, 2015.
/s/_________
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN
United States District Judge
s.
Copies:
counsel of record
pro se parties