Frederick Stampone v. Joseph B. Fazio

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 07-2036
________________
FREDERICK STAMPONE,
Appellant
v.
JOSEPH B. FAZIO; MAYOR TOWNSHIP OF SADDLE BROOK;
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
TOWNSHIP OF SADDLEBROOK;
MAYOR KAREN CHAMBERLIN
________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 00-CV-05435)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 10, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE and AMBRO, CIRCUIT Judges
(Filed: October 15, 2007)
________________
OPINION
________________
PER CURIAM
This is an appeal by Frederick Stampone of an order of the United States District

-- 1 of 2 --

1 The parties are already familiar with the facts of this case. Therefore, we limit our
discussion to those facts essential to our decision.
2 Stampone also asks us to revisit our earlier opinion which affirmed the dismissal of
several parties from his lawsuit. We see no reason to disturb our earlier opinion.
2
Court for the District of New Jersey, enforcing a settlement between the parties.1 We
have considered the briefs and appendices, including a transcript of the court proceeding
on February 20, 2007, memorializing the settlement agreement of the parties; and the
transcript on April 4, 2007, concerning the motion to enforce the settlement. No reading
of the February 20th transcript supports Stampone’s contention that he was entitled to
receive the settlement payment within two weeks of that conference. In fact, the District
Court carefully explained that the defendant’s insurer would need time, perhaps 7-14
days, to obtain authority for a higher settlement amount, and that assuming the amount
was approved by the insurer, it would probably take 30 days for Stampone to receive the
money. Settlement transcript, at 3. Stampone indicated that he understood the terms. Id.
at 3-4. We hold that the District Court’s finding that the parties had agreed on the terms
of the settlement was not clearly erroneous. Tiernan v. Devoe, 923 F.2d 1024, 1031 n.5
(3d Cir. 1991) (where district court has made explicit findings concerning settlement we
review findings under a clearly erroneous standard).
For the foregoing reasons, the District Court properly enforced the settlement, and
we will affirm that order.2

-- 2 of 2 --