Fischer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Filing 148

ORDER granting 147 Stipulation and Motion to Vacate Judgment. The Judgment at Docket 138 is VACATED. The Court GRANTS the Stipulation as it relates to the pending motions at Docket 133 and 139 , and those motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Joshua M. Kindred on 1/17/2023. (JDS, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
MARCIA FISCHER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant and
Third-Party Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00226-JMK
ORDER GRANTING
STIPULATION AND MOTION TO
VACATE JUDGMENT

vs.
MARK EIBEN,
Third-Party
Defendant.

At Docket 147, the Parties filed a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice of
all claims, with each side to bear their own costs and attorney’s fees and with Plaintiff
Marcia Fischer to satisfy the Medicare lien (the “Stipulation”). Along with settling the
pending post-trial motions at Docket 133 and 139, the Stipulation asks this Court to vacate
the Judgment in favor of Ms. Fischer at Docket 138.
The Court construes the Stipulation as including an unopposed motion for
vacatur under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to

relieve a party from a final judgment “on a motion and just terms” for “any other reason
that justifies relief” beyond those identified in Rule 60(b)(1)–(5). This provision “vests
power in courts adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is
appropriate to accomplish justice,”1 and, as such, motions pursuant to Rule 60(b) “are
addressed to the sound discretion of the district court.”2 Here, the Court finds just reasons
to vacate the Judgment. First, and most importantly, the Parties have been litigating issues
that would affect the Judgment, including how to apportion fees and damages. 3 The Parties
understood the Court would rule on the pending motions and chose the certainty of
settlement. Given the strong judicial policy that favors settlement, the Court finds justice
will be served by vacating the Judgment pursuant to the Parties’ agreement. 4 Additionally,
vacatur furthers judicial economy by reducing future litigation and settling any remaining
issues surrounding Third-Party Defendant Mark Eiben. 5
Having found that the posture of this case, pending issues, and the Parties’
settlement justifies vacatur, the Court GRANTS the Stipulation at Docket 147. The
Judgment at Docket 138 is VACATED. The Court GRANTS the Stipulation as it relates
to the pending motions at Docket 133 and 139, and those motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk of Courts is kindly directed to close this case.
1

Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 614–15 (1949).
In re Syncor ERISA Litigation, 516 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th Cir. 2008).
3
See Docket 133 (motion for attorney’s fees); Docket 138 (motion to apportion damages,
fees, and costs).
4
See In re Syncor, 516 F.3d at 1101 (vacating judgment when parties had entered a binding
settlement agreement).
5
See Stryker Spine, a Div. of Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Spine Grp. of Wisconsin,
LLC, 320 F. Supp. 3d 985, 991 (E.D. Wis. 2018) (vacating judgment pursuant to settlement
agreement furthered public interest in judicial economy).
2

Fischer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Order Granting Stipulation and Motion to Vacate Judgment

Case No. 3:18-cv-00226-JMK
Page 2

DATED this 17th day of January, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge

Fischer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Order Granting Stipulation and Motion to Vacate Judgment

Case No. 3:18-cv-00226-JMK
Page 3