Case Name: KARL STORZ IMAGING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POINTE CONCEPTION MEDICAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-16
Citations: 471 F. App'x 904
Docket Number: No. 2012-1001
Parties: KARL STORZ IMAGING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POINTE CONCEPTION MEDICAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 904–904

Head Matter:
KARL STORZ IMAGING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POINTE CONCEPTION MEDICAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 2012-1001.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
July 16, 2012.
Before NEWMAN, LOURIE and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
The parties jointly move to remand this case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California due to settlement.
The parties state they have settled the case and requested an indicative ruling indicating from the district court, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62.1, whether the district court would defer, deny, or grant a motion to vacate the underlying judgment if the case were remanded. The district court indicated pursuant to Rule 62.1(a)(3) that it would grant the motion.
Upon consideration thereof,
It Is Ordered That:
(1) The motion to remand is granted. This court, however, takes no position on the propriety or necessity of vacator, leaving it to the district court to apply the principles enunciated in U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 29, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994).
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.