Opinion ID: 217428
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard for Determining Compliance to Permit Vacatur of Consent Decrees.

Text: The Defendants moved for vacatur of the consent decrees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), which permits a party to be relieved from a final judgment when the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged. The Defendants bear the burden of proving that they have met the Rule's requirements: in this case, that they have satisfied the judgment. [4] See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992); Jeff D. IV, 365 F.3d at 851. The parties do not dispute that the relevant standard is substantial compliance with the requirements of the consent decrees. Because consent decrees have many of the attributes of ordinary contracts [and] . . . should be construed basically as contracts, United States v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 236, 95 S.Ct. 926, 43 L.Ed.2d 148 (1975), the doctrine of substantial compliance, or substantial performance, may be employed. See Joseph A. v. New Mexico Dept. of Human Servs., 69 F.3d 1081, 1086 (10th Cir.1995); see also Ujdur v. Thompson, 126 Idaho 6, 878 P.2d 180, 183 (Ct.App. 1994) ([T]he doctrine of substantial performance. . . is not necessarily limited to [any particular] context and may apply to any contract.). The construction and enforcement of the consent decrees, where the parties are residents of Idaho and the underlying agreements were entered in that state, is governed by the contract law of Idaho as well as familiar contract principles. See Jeff D. III, 899 F.2d at 759-60 (applying Idaho law). The phrase `substantial compliance' is not susceptible of a mathematically precise definition. Joseph A., 69 F.3d at 1085. We have explained that substantial compliance does imply something less than a strict and literal compliance with the contract provisions but fundamentally it means that the deviation is unintentional and so minor or trivial as not `substantially to defeat the object which the parties intend to accomplish.' Wells Benz, Inc. v. United States, 333 F.2d 89, 92 (9th Cir. 1964) (quoting Connell v. Higgins, 170 Cal. 541, 150 P. 769, 775 (1915)). Under Idaho law, substantial compliance is compliance which, despite deviation or omission, provides the important and essential benefits of the contract. Ujdur, 878 P.2d at 183. Thus, it was the burden of the Defendants to establish that they had substantially complied with the requirements of the consent decrees, and that any deviation from literal compliance did not defeat the essential purposes of the decrees. We conclude that this burden was not placed on the Defendants in the district court's final compliance proceeding.