- 8 -
his attention until long after January 1994. Although Mr.
Driscoll acknowledged at the hearing that petitioner was not
happy with the decision, both Mr. Driscoll and Mr. Griffin agreed
that petitioner raised no objection on January 5, 1994, to Mr.
Griffin's signing the decision on that date. It is apparent from
the language in petitioner's letter to counsel for respondent
that petitioner prepared the letter after the conference on
January 5, 1994. The Court is satisfied that the letter was not
mailed to counsel for respondent, or it was not received by
respondent, until February 14, 1994. It is significant that
petitioners failed to appear at the Court's session on January
31, 1994, to present their case, as they indicated they would do
in their letter of January 5, 1994. Petitioners offered no
evidence as to why they failed to appear on January 31, 1994, to
have their case heard if they disagreed with the basis of
settlement that the parties had agreed to on January 5, 1994.
Petitioners, therefore, have not convinced the Court that a fraud
was perpetrated on the Court in the entry of the decision of this
case on January 11, 1994. Petitioners' motion for leave to file
a motion to vacate will be denied.
An appropriate order
will be issued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: May 25, 2011