Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-00198/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-00198-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1104 Recovery of Benefits to Employee

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DICK'S RANCHO GLASS, INC., No. CIV.S-99-0198 DAD

et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

CHARLES R. BOGGS, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

This matter came before the court on December 9, 2005, for

hearing on the parties’ joint motion for vacatur pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). William P. Torngren appeared on

behalf of plaintiffs. Howard M. Hoffman appeared on behalf of

defendants. Having considered all written materials submitted in

connection with the motion, and after hearing oral argument, the

court will grant the joint motion for vacatur.

BACKGROUND

Following a three-week court trial in this ERISA action, on

June 4, 2003, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of

Case 2:99-cv-00198-DAD Document 313 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

law, ordering that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff Glass

Plan and plaintiff Floor Covering Plan. Judgment was entered in

accordance with the court’s order on June 4, 2003. A subsequent

motion to amend the judgment by defendants was granted in part and

denied in part. Following hearing on the parties’ motions for

attorney’s fees, plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and expenses

was granted in part and defendant Sun Citrus’ motion for attorney’s

fees was denied, although Sun Citrus was awarded costs.

Defendants appealed and plaintiffs cross-appealed. The

parties thereafter engaged in a mediation, with the assistance of the

Ninth Circuit Mediation Office, and all issues were settled. By

order filed in this court on August 24, 2005, the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the parties’ appeals

without prejudice to reinstatement pursuant to the stipulation of the

parties. That order provided that the appeals would be reinstated

should the district court decline to grant the parties’ joint motion

to vacate the judgment. The parties filed that joint motion on

October 27, 2005.

ANALYSIS

As the parties indicate, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b) provides, in relevant part:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the

court may relieve a party or a party's legal

representative from a final judgment, order, or

proceeding for the following reasons: ... (5) ...

it is no longer equitable that the judgment

should have prospective application; or (6) any

other reason justifying relief from the operation

of the judgment.

/////

Case 2:99-cv-00198-DAD Document 313 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

When a case settles on appeal the appellate court should

vacate the judgment under review only in “exceptional circumstances.” 

U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 29

(1994). However, the appellate court remains free to remand the case

to the district court to consider a request for vacatur under Rule

60(b). Id. When such a remand occurs, the Ninth Circuit has held

that the district court may apply an equitable balancing test in

considering vacatur. Am. Games, Inc. v. Trade Prods. Inc., 142 F.3d

1164, 1167-70 (9th Cir. 1998) More specifically, it is the Ninth

Circuit’s “established procedure of remanding so the district court

can decide whether to vacate its judgment in light of the

consequences and attendant hardships of dismissal or refusal to

dismiss and the competing values of finality of judgment and right to

relitigation of unreviewed disputes.” Id. at 1168 (internal

quotations and citations omitted).

The court has determined that the equitable considerations

warrant vacatur. The parties represent that the confidential

settlement, which is contingent on vacatur, provides for a payment to

plaintiffs. In return, plaintiffs will waive and release all claims

against defendants. The settlement completely disposes of all issues

between the parties. There is no danger of relitigation of the

issues and the settlement is comprehensive, final and binding on all

parties. In the event defendants fail to pay in accordance with the

terms of the settlement, the settlement provides that plaintiffs may

take judgment on the settlement in state court. Finally, following

the settlement reached before the Ninth Circuit Mediator, the Ninth

Case 2:99-cv-00198-DAD Document 313 Filed 12/12/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Circuit has dismissed the parties’ appeals without prejudice should

the court decline to grant the parties’ joint motion to vacate the

judgment. For these reasons, the equitable considerations warrant

granting the parties’ joint motion for vacatur.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties’ joint motion for vacatur is granted; 

2. With the exception of any discovery orders (including,

without limitation, docket items numbered 27, 30, 31, 34, 35 and 38)

and the Stipulation and Order Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure (docket item number 262), the judgment and

orders entered in this action by the undersigned are vacated; and

3. This action is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is

directed to close the file.

DATED: December 9, 2005.

DAD:th

ddad1\consent\dicksrancho.vacatur2

Case 2:99-cv-00198-DAD Document 313 Filed 12/12/05 Page 4 of 4