Burlington Data Processing v. Automated Medical, Civ. A. No. 79-151.
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. District of Vermont |
| Writing for the Court | HOLDEN |
| Citation | 492 F. Supp. 821 |
| Parties | BURLINGTON DATA PROCESSING, INC. v. AUTOMATED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., Clinical Management Systems, Inc., and William Carlson. |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 79-151. |
| Decision Date | 12 June 1980 |
492 F. Supp. 821
BURLINGTON DATA PROCESSING, INC.
v.
AUTOMATED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., Clinical Management Systems, Inc., and William Carlson.
Civ. A. No. 79-151.
United States District Court, D. Vermont.
June 12, 1980.
Alan F. Sylvester, Sylvester & Maley, Burlington, Vt., for plaintiff.
Thomas F. Heilmann, Villa & Heilmann, Burlington, Vt., Paul S. Richter, Batzell, Nunn & Bode, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
HOLDEN, Chief Judge.
This action was originally filed in the Vermont Chittenden County Superior Court. It was removed to this court on July 26, 1979. The original complaint alleged misappropriation of proprietary information, conversion, unfair competition, breach of a confidential relationship and breach of contract. On February 19, 1980, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint by adding a cause of action alleging fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and breach of contract. The amended complaint alleges that as a result of representations made by defendants, the plaintiff agreed to render null and void a restrictive covenant contained in the original contract between the two parties. The agreement to set aside the restrictive covenant constituted the basis for a consent decree entered on February 15, 1978 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Civil Action 77-4254 which involved the same parties that are before the court at this time. On May 6, 1980 this court denied plaintiff's motion to amend for the reason that it appeared to be an attempt to circumvent the consent decree entered in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On May 20, 1980 plaintiff moved for reargument and reconsideration of the motion to amend. After further oral and written argument the court again denies plaintiff's motion to amend for the reasons which follow.1
As a general rule, a consent judgment is a judgment on the merits, as is a judgment entered upon a settlement or compromise. Wallace Clark & Co., Inc. v. Acheson Ind., 394 F.Supp. 393 (S.D.N.Y. 1975), aff'd 532 F.2d 846 (2 Cir.), reh. denied 427 U.S. 908, 96 S.Ct. 3194, 49 L.Ed.2d 1200 (1976); Stuyvesant Insurance Co. v. Dean Construction Co., 254 F.Supp. 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1966), aff'd 382 F.2d 991 (2 Cir. 1967). The rationale for the rule has been stated by the Supreme Court:
Consent decrees are entered into by parties to a case after careful negotiation has produced agreement on their precise terms. The parties waive their right to litigate the issues involved in the case and thus save themselves the time,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett Estate v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. 442-80
...setting aside, vacating or enjoining the judgment." Burlington Data Processing, Inc. [140 Vt. 343] v. Automated Medical Systems, Inc., 492 F.Supp. 821, 822 (D.Vt.1980). It is firmly established that judgments that appear to have been regularly obtained are conclusive upon parties and privie......
-
Hixson v. Plump, No. 96-578
...Ins. Co., 140 Vt. 339, 342, 438 A.2d 380, 382 (1981) (quoting Burlington Data Processing, Inc. v. Automated Medical Systems, Inc., 492 F.Supp. 821, 822 (D.Vt.1980)). Collateral attack is only appropriate when a party can demonstrate a want in the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter......
-
In re Emmer Bros. Co., Bankruptcy No. 4-82-957
...or contemplates relief other than collateral attack. See also Burlington Data Processing, Inc. v. Automated Medical Systems, Inc., 492 F.Supp. 821, 822 (D.Vt.1980) (collateral attack is "attempt to avoid, defeat, or evade a judicial decree or to deny its force and 5 The decisions cited by t......
-
In re American Basketball League, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 98-60354-MM.
...Cir.1998); Meincke v. United States, 14 Cl.Ct. 383, 386 (1988); Burlington Data Processing, Inc. v. Automated Medical Systems, Inc., 492 F.Supp. 821, 822 For example, in Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2001), the federal circuit found that the Federal Court of Claims ......
-
Bennett Estate v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. 442-80
...setting aside, vacating or enjoining the judgment." Burlington Data Processing, Inc. [140 Vt. 343] v. Automated Medical Systems, Inc., 492 F.Supp. 821, 822 (D.Vt.1980). It is firmly established that judgments that appear to have been regularly obtained are conclusive upon parties and privie......
-
Hixson v. Plump, No. 96-578
...Ins. Co., 140 Vt. 339, 342, 438 A.2d 380, 382 (1981) (quoting Burlington Data Processing, Inc. v. Automated Medical Systems, Inc., 492 F.Supp. 821, 822 (D.Vt.1980)). Collateral attack is only appropriate when a party can demonstrate a want in the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter......
-
In re Emmer Bros. Co., Bankruptcy No. 4-82-957
...or contemplates relief other than collateral attack. See also Burlington Data Processing, Inc. v. Automated Medical Systems, Inc., 492 F.Supp. 821, 822 (D.Vt.1980) (collateral attack is "attempt to avoid, defeat, or evade a judicial decree or to deny its force and 5 The decisions cited by t......
-
In re American Basketball League, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 98-60354-MM.
...Cir.1998); Meincke v. United States, 14 Cl.Ct. 383, 386 (1988); Burlington Data Processing, Inc. v. Automated Medical Systems, Inc., 492 F.Supp. 821, 822 For example, in Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2001), the federal circuit found that the Federal Court of Claims ......