Scott V. Carpanzano, Appeals from the United States District Court
Essay Preview: Scott V. Carpanzano, Appeals from the United States District Court
Report this essay
Madonna University, Michigan, USAMaster’s in Business AdministrationInternational Business (specialization)Legal Issues in BusinessChapter 1 – chapter 4Journal Project AssignmentProfessor Jessica Cummingsď‚· Irut Sayed2184592.1 Scott v. CarpanzanoCase Name and Citation:  Scott v. Carpanzano, Appeals from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Texas, US.DC No. 5:12-CV-6Facts:  $2 million was deposited in the escrow account by Rick Scott. The account was under the control of a company owned by Salvatore Carpanzano. The funds being withdrawn immediately caused a violation of the escrow agreement. Unable to recover his amount, Scott filed a case against Salvatore and others which included his daughter Carmela. Courts during the investigation found out that Salvatore intentionally ignored the allegations on him by Scott, which resulted for the court to declare a sum of more than $6million in favor of Scott from Carpanazo.Plaintiff and Defendant Arguments:  Mr Scott alleged that the escrow account holding his money which was under the control of Mr. Carpanzano was being used for questionable transfers. To  which initially, the Carpanzano did not respond then later argued that the default judgement against him should be nullified as he did not serve the second amended complaint which served the motion for default decision, or the default judgment in ordinance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Assuming that Scott disobeyed the Rule 5, Supreme Court decision and decision of this court was made clear that serious regulations mishaps during the course of hearing, without more, do not amount to a deprivation of due process. Issue: Scott raised an issue that the Carpanzano family had misused his $2 million which he had deposited in the escrow account maintained by the CarpanzanoCourts Answer:  The U.S Court of appeals for the fifth circuit confirmed the decision against Mr. Carpanzano, but reversed the decision against Carmela. Scott had no obvios allegations made against Carmela.Rule: Rule 55(c) provides that a “court may set aside an entry of default for good cause, and it may set aside a default judgment under Rule 60(b).” FED. R. CIV. P. 55(c). Rule 60(b)(1) provides that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1). (Scott v. Carpanzano, No. 13-10096, at *7 (5th Cir. 2014))Whereas, here The defendant seeks to set aside the judgement passed to under the favor of Rule 60(b)(1), here the court will consider the main factors namely: whether the defendant willfully defaulted, or meritorious defense in presented and whether setting aside of the judgment would be biased  for the plaintiff.Analysis: The analysis lead to the fact that the defendant willfully defaulted while the plaintiff failed to bring about a meritorious defense. Mr Carpanzano however, was not relieved from the monetary default judgment because of default judgment holds critical value and even the slightest abuse may lead to reversal. Therefore, the order were in this regards only.
Conclusion/Decision:  A protion of the court’s decision is not to relief any monetary portion of the judgment against Carmela Carpanzano. Affirmative in regards to orders in all other regards while remand for further proceedings were granted consistent with the same opinion.Reference:(Scott v. Carpanzano, No. 13-10096, at *7 (5th Cir. 2014))Miller, R., & Cross, F. B. (2019). The legal environment today (8th edition ed.). Usa: Cengage learning.2.2 May v. Chrysler,Case Name and Citation: United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.Otto MAY, Jr., Plaintiff–Appellant/Cross–Appellee, v. CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC, Defendant–Appellee/Cross Appellant.Nos. 11–3000, 11–3109.Facts: May Jr, a pipefitter at the Chrysler group LLC, was the butt of all jokes, and the center of all racism. He even received death threats hidden at various spots in his work station. May made complain to the director of the human resource. Various meetings were then held to address and condemn the unjust act. Out of more than thousand employees, only sixty employees attended the meeting. In house investigations took place, handwritings were being matched, etc. The group of bullies were not tracked down, which made Mr May file a case against Chrysler for hostile work environment.Plaintiff and Defendant Arguments: May Jr, sued Chrysler for hostile work environment and being harassed immensely and regularly, while Chrysler believed that Mr. May was harassing himself and putting up a show in order to get the compensation from the company.Issue: Mr May pursued the court in order to get justice against all the racism he faced at his workplace, and in spite of the fact that he complained to the head, not a serious action was taken and the deatah threats, racism still continued. To which the Chrylser argued that May is putting up a show to enjoy the compensation benefits.Courts Answer: The court finalized an amount for the punitive damages on the basis of the reprehensible and unethical nature of Chrysler to unable to stop the unacceptable behavior in his company. Rule: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964Under this act, discrimination done on the basis of race, color, nationality, origin, religion or gender in employment is prohibited. In order to file a case under this act against the employer, he must approach the court through Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). If the EEOC fails to file a case against the employer, then the claimer can directly file a case in the court against the employer. Analysis: On the Third issue, the court was on the side of Chrysler and decided that May failed to present enough proofs for the court to judge that Chrysler recklessly ignored his federally protected rights. The verdict on punitive damages was therefore reversed. Both parties appealed. Chrysler was insistent that it should be held responsible at all while May argued for the jury to believe that Chrysler was not only liable but also reckless. Therefore, the judgment on punitive charges had to be reinforced.