Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01781/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01781-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332ds Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

1

3:18-cv-01781-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRIMACY ENGINEERING, INC., a

New Jersey Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

ITE, INC., a Virginia Corporation; ISPA 

TECHNOLOGY, LLC, a Virginia

Limited Liability Company; TED

RAITCH, an individual; CHRISTIAN S. 

BROWN, an individual; and DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-01781-GPC-MDD

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 

TO VACATE PRIOR ORDERS.

(ECF No. 63.)

On January 4, 2019, the Court granted in part and deferred in part Defendants’ 

motion for attorneys’ fees and denied Defendants’ motion to amend the Court’s prior 

orders and judgment. (ECF No. 45.) Then, on May 9, 2019, the Court denied Primacy’s 

motion for reconsideration and granted Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 

58.) The Parties now move jointly to vacate these Orders.

1 (ECF No. 63.)

 

1 The Parties’ motion, in fact, asks that the Court vacate ECF No. 48. (See ECF No. 63.) That document, 

Case 3:18-cv-01781-GPC-MDD Document 64 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-01781-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Parties’ motion does not offer any case or authority for the Court to vacate 

prior orders, and provides no justification for vacating the subject orders other than a 

cursory reference to a settlement. (Id. at 2.) Cf. True v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 520 F. 

Supp. 2d 1175, 1182 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (denying defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion where 

defendant “cite[d] not a single case in support of its” argument); Fed. Ins. Co. v. Cty. of 

Westchester, 921 F. Supp. 1136, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (“the adversary system, it is 

counsel’s responsibility to explain why [its arguments] have legal merit; the Court does 

not serve as counsel’s law clerk”).

Moreover, a number of cases have denied motions to vacate an order after a 

settlement. See, e.g., POLAR-Mohr Maschinenvertriebsgesellschaft GmbH, Co. KG v. 

Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-01804-WHO, 2018 WL 8344296, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 

11, 2018) (“The parties also stipulated to vacate the Order Regarding Cross-Motions for 

Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 60. The parties lack the authority to agree to vacate court 

orders, it is not my practice to vacate orders as part of a settlement, and I will not vacate 

the one in question.”); Reynolds v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. C-10-4893-SI, 2012 WL 

4753499, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2012) (declining to vacate an order on summary 

judgment as part of a global settlement). And, at a minimum, it appears district courts

“are not obliged to vacate a prior order at the behest of the parties in order to facilitate 

settlement,” see Bates v. Union Oil Co., 944 F.2d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 1991), since 

“[j]udicial precedents are presumptively correct and valuable to the legal community as a 

whole.” See U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994).

“They are not merely the property of private litigants and should stand unless a court 

concludes that the public interest would be served by a vacatur.” Id.

 

however, is a motion and not an order. (See ECF No. 48 (captioned as, “PLAINTIFF PRIMACY 

ENGINEERING, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES”)). Based on the content of the Parties’ motion, 

the Court assumes the Parties intended to refer to the Court’s January 4, 2019 Order (i.e., ECF No. 45).

Case 3:18-cv-01781-GPC-MDD Document 64 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-01781-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Consequently, in the absence of a persuasive argument explaining how and why 

the Court should vacate the cited orders following the Parties’ settlement, the Court 

DENIES the Parties’ request without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01781-GPC-MDD Document 64 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3