OPINION & ORDER

[Resolving Doc. 60]

JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.

On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff Noel A. Cummings and Defendant Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority settled their employment dispute.1 Plaintiff Cummings now moves the Court to vacate the settlement agreement and reinstate her complaint.2 For the reasons below, this Court DENIES Plaintiff Cummings' motion.

I. Background

On August 5, 2016, Plaintiff Cummings filed a motion to review her settlement agreement with Defendant Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, arguing that its terms conflict with the definition of "earnable salary" under Ohio Revised Code § 145.01 (R)(2)(h).3 The Court denied the motion, citing lack of an actual case or controversy as well as a lack of jurisdiction.4 Since then, the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") has determined that the terms of the settlement agreement violate Ohio Rev. Code § 145.01 and Ohio Admin. Code § 145-1- 26(H)(1).5 Plaintiff now moves to vacate the Court's February 4, 2015 dismissal order,6 rescind the settlement agreement, and reinstate her complaint.7

II. Legal Standard

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), "[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding" in the case of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."8 A 60(b)(1) motion must be made "no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order" in the case.9 "[T]he party seeking to invoke [Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)] bears the burden of establishing that its prerequisites are satisfied."10

"[O]nly the existence of fraud or mutual mistake can justify reopening an otherwise valid settlement agreement."11 A unilateral mistake does not warrant rescission of an agreement.12

III. Discussion

Plaintiff's motion fails for two reasons. First, Plaintiff's motion is untimely.13 Plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(1) motion must have been filed within one year of this Court's February 4, 2015 order.14 Plaintiff did not file her motion until August 29, 2016,15 nearly seven months late.

Second, even if Plaintiff's motion were timely, Plaintiff made a unilateral rather than a mutual mistake in entering the settlement agreement. Arguably, Plaintiff mistakenly believed that her settlement agreement monthly payments would be "earnable salary" and would therefore allow her to achieve 30 years of total service credit in order to retire.16 OPERS determined—a year and a half later—that the payments are not earnable salary under Ohio law.17 Defendant did not make this decision. Plaintiff claims that this new information invalidates the settlement agreement.

But "ignorance of the law [is an] insufficient bas[i]s for 60(b)(1) relief."18 Plaintiff, who retained counsel specifically to review the settlement agreement,19 was responsible for confirming whether settlements payments would qualify as "earnable salary."20 She cannot now "avoid the consequences of [her] decision to settle the litigation . . . [because] it subsequently develop[ed] that the choice was unfortunate."21 Because Plaintiff's mistake was unilateral, no 60(b) relief is available.22

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons above, this Court DENIES Plaintiff Cumming's motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.