Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06407/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06407-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHIRLEY CONWAY, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

NORTHFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 18-cv-06407-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS AND 

DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 35 

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff Shirley Conway and defendant Northfield Insurance 

Company’s stipulated motion to vacate the Court’s summary judgment rulings (Dkt. No. 31) and 

dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to a settlement between the parties. (Dkt. No. 35 

(“Motion”).) In their motion, the parties seek vacatur, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

54(b), of the Court’s July 16, 2019 “Order Granting Conway’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment; Denying Northfield’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. No. 31), noting that 

their agreement to jointly move for vacatur was “a significant factor in successfully resolving 

Conway’s pending claims against Northfield.” (Motion at 2.) 

The Court finds that equitable considerations do not warrant vacatur in this case. See John 

Simmons Co. v. Grier Bros. Co., 258 U.S. 82, 91 (1922) (noting that interlocutory orders may be 

revised when it is “consonant with equity” to do so); American Games, Inc. v. Trade Products, 

Inc., 142 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1998) (district court may vacate a judgment upon 

consideration of “the consequences and attendant hardships of dismissal or refusal to dismiss” and 

“the competing values of finality of judgment and right to re-litigation of unreviewed disputes”) 

(citing Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1370-71 (9th Cir. 1995)). While the Court recognizes that 

judicial policy generally favors settlement, Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, 499 F.3d 926, 939 

(9th Cir. 2007), here, that interest is outweighed by the Court’s concerns over vacating a summary 

Case 4:18-cv-06407-YGR Document 36 Filed 08/12/19 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

judgment order that addressed developing areas of law and may be useful to the public. 

See Bandcorp Mgmt. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994) (“Judicial precedents are 

presumptively correct and valuable to the legal community as a whole. 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.”) (citation omitted); Gardner v. CafePress Inc., No. 3:13-CV-1108-

GPC-JLB, 2015 WL 13427727, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2015) (“[T]he systemic implications of 

granting pre-judgment settlement-contingent vacatur present serious concerns for ‘the orderly 

operation of the federal judicial system[.]’”) (quoting Bonner, 513 U.S. at 27).1 Further, the Court 

is not inclined to set a precedent that would invite litigants “to bring a case, lose in the district 

court, settle with the winning party, and thereby have the trial court judgment vacated 

automatically so as to the clear the path for another ‘test case’ raising the same issues.” Blair v. 

Shanahan, 38 F.3d 1514, 1521 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Accordingly, the parties’ motion is DENIED with respect to their request to vacate the 

Courts’ summary judgment rulings. Because it is not clear whether settlement is contingent on the 

Court vacating its summary judgment rulings, the parties are hereby ORDERED to submit a joint 

statement providing the Court with an update on the status of the litigation no later than August 

23, 2019. If the parties intend to continue litigating this dispute, said statement should contain a 

proposal as to how to proceed on any unresolved issues in this case. 

Further, a compliance hearing shall be held on the Court’s 1:59 p.m. calendar on Tuesday, 

August 27, 2019, in Courtroom 1 of the United States Courthouse located at 1301 Clay Street in 

Oakland, California. If the parties’ statement is timely filed, the parties need not appear, and the 

compliance hearing will be taken off calendar. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 12, 2019 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 1

 Although Bonner concerned post-judgment vacatur under Rule 60(b), which generally is 

subject to a higher standard than pre-judgment vacatur under Rule 54(b), Supreme Court precedent 

in this related context is instructive. 

Case 4:18-cv-06407-YGR Document 36 Filed 08/12/19 Page 2 of 2