Servpro Industries Incorporated et al v. Zerorez of Phoenix LLC et al

Filing 131

ORDER - The Joint Motion to Vacate (Doc. 130 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall VACATE the Order of September 10, 2018 (Doc. 111 ), the Judgment in a Civil Case (Doc. 112 ), and the Judgment on Taxation of Costs (Doc. 122 ). This case shall remain closed. See document for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 4/22/2019. (RMV)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Servpro Industries Incorporated, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-00862-PHX-ROS

Zerorez of Phoenix LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the parties request the Court vacate the Order

16

resolving the cross-motions for summary judgment as well as the accompanying

17

judgments. As correctly pointed out by the parties, “[a] decision of a federal district court

18

judge is not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial

19

district, or even upon the same judge in a different case.” Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S.

20

692, 709 n.7 (2011) (quotation omitted). Thus, vacating the summary judgment order

21

would seem to have very little effect; “[w]hether the court vacates the order or not, it

22

remains in the public record, and has as much persuasive effect as any court or party wishes

23

to accord it.”

24

10677072, at *1 (W.D. Wash. July 8, 2009).

Unigen Pharm., Inc. v. Walgreen Co., No. C07-471RAJ, 2009 WL

25

Despite the lack of effect, the balance of equities supports granting the parties’ joint

26

request. Am. Games, Inc. v. Trade Prod., Inc., 142 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting

27

district court should apply “equitable balancing test” when determining whether to vacate

28

prior order). Granting the request will prevent further proceedings. See Quest Integrity

1

USA, LLC v. A.Hak Indus. Servs. US, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-01971-RAJ, 2019 WL 1572691,

2

at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 11, 2019) (stating court would vacate because doing so would

3

“alleviates the need for further proceedings”). And, given that the summary judgment

4

order is already publicly available and will remain so, there are no countervailing interests

5

weighing against vacating the orders.

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS ORDERED the Joint Motion to Vacate (Doc. 130) is GRANTED. The Clerk

8

of Court shall VACATE the Order of September 10, 2018 (Doc. 111), the Judgment in a

9

Civil Case (Doc. 112), and the Judgment on Taxation of Costs (Doc. 122). This case shall

10
11

remain closed.
Dated this 22nd day of April, 2019.

12
13
14

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
Senior United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-