James Young had this to say at Commonwealth Conservative on the issue of whether the judgment against Georgetown University in the Earnie Borda matter has been "vacated:"
"What Haru apparently refers to is a request for vacatur after an appeal was filed by Geogetown and Earnie. The motion (Clerk’s Docket No. 231) was granted by District Court Judge James Robertson, and clearly indicates that the case was settled after the jury rendered its verdict. As an experienced civil attorney, I can say that under no circumstances can this be construed as anything but confirmation of the original jury verdict. The plaintiff got something from Porta and Georgetown. "
I'm going to delve deep into my ancient law school days for the explanation. A "Motion for Vacatur" essentially means that the parties decided they were sick of paying lawyers so much money to litigate this thing and they decided to settle on their own. Vacatur is the request they make after they come to a settlement. It asks the court to set aside its judgment so the settlement can take effect. A judge has the power to either grant the motion or tell the parties they're full of it and the judgment will stand.
Say what you want. A judgment was entered in a federal court against Georgetown and Porta. Georgetown seems to have gotten slammed at every turn, and finally agreed to settle with the woman in this case after first appealing the jury's verdict. I'm guessing the details of the settlement were sealed. If they haven't, I'm sure we'll hear otherwise.
James, am I essentially correct here? Or are the cobwebs overpowering my brain?
