C&C Properties, Inc. et al v. Shell Pipeline Company, et al
Filing
418
ORDER RE: Joint Motion to Vacate Amended Judgment against Shell 393 and Dismiss Case 417 signed by District Judge Lee H Rosenthal on 1/27/2025. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk TEL)
1 Raymond A. Cardozo (SBN 173263)
Email: rcardozo@reedsmith.com
2 REED SMITH LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
3 San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
Phone:+ 1 415 543 8700
4 Fax:+ 1 415 391 8269
5 Kasey J. Curtis (SBN 268173)
Email: kcurtis@reedsmith.com
6 REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
7 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
Telephone: + 1 213 457 8000
8 Facsimile:+ 1 213 457 8080
9 Attorneys for Defendant SHELL PIPELINE
COMPANY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
C & C PROPERTIES, INC. , a California
13 corporation; JEC PANAMA, LLC, a California
limited liability company; and WINGS WAY,
14 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
15
16
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CASE NO.: 1:14-cv-01889-LHR-CDB
JOINT MOTION TO VACATE
JUDGMENT AGAINST SHELL AND
DISMISS CASE
nIDGE: Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal
MAG. nIDGE: Hon. Christopher D. Baker
17
SHELL PIPELINE COMPANY, a Delaware
limited partnership; ALON USA PARAMOUNT
18
PETROLEUM CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
19
20
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AGAINST SHELL AND DISMISS CASE
1
2
JOINT MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AGAINST SHELL AND DISMISS CASE
Plaintiffs C&C Properties, Inc., JEC Panama, LLC, and Wings Way, LLC ("Plaintiffs") and
3 Defendant Shell Pipeline Company ("Shell") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their
4 undersigned counsel, jointly move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and
5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) for an order vacating the amended judgment rendered in
6 this case against Shell and dismissing this case with prejudice. Following entry of the amended
7 judgment, both Plaintiffs and Shell appealed to the Ninth Circuit. As part of an appellate mediation
8 in connection with those appeals, the Parties agreed to settle their dispute. Payment has been made
9 pursuant to the terms of that settlement agreement. To implement the settlement and secure the
10 release of the supersedeas bond Shell previously posted, the Parties jointly request that the amended
~
~
uCl
...
11 judgment be vacated as to Shell and that this case be dismissed with prejudice.
0
E
p..
"'u
::r:
-0
.-1 -5
.-1 .5
f-<
ยง
SE .e
12
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)( 5) permits a district court, "[ o]n motion and just
13 terms," to "relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding" for
1
14 specified reasons, including that "(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged ... or
~ [
E'
15 applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or [,r] (6) [for] any other reason that justifies relief."
CZ)
Cl
J.LI
~
u
~-0
.!l
]
<
16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)-(6). Rule 60(b) vests district courts with "equitable discretion when
17 reviewing [their] own judgments." American Games, Inc. v. Trade Products, Inc., 142 F.3d 1164,
18 1170 (9th Cir. 1998). When considering whether an order vacating a judgment, or "vacatur," is
19 appropriate, district courts employ an "equitable balancing" test under which they are tasked with
20 assessing "whether to vacate [their] judgment in light of 'the consequences and attendant hardships
21 of dismissal or refusal to dismiss' and ' the competing values of finality of judgment and right to
22 relitigation ofunreviewed disputes."' Id. at 1168 (quoting Diley v. Gunn , 64 F.3d 1365, 1370-71
23 (9th Cir. 1995)). Here, applying Rule 60(b)'s equitable balancing test and given the circumstances
24 that prompted the Parties' joint request, vacatur is warranted.
25
First, vacatur is appropriate given that it is jointly requested by the Parties as part of a
26 broader settlement. Click Entertainment v. JYP Entm 't Co. , 2009 WL 3030212, *2 (D. Haw. Sept.
27 22, 2009) ("vacating the Verdict and Amended Judgment was contemplated as part of settlement
28 (though not made a condition of settlement), and thus the Court should, where appropriate, support
- 2JOINT MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AGAINST SHELL AND DISMISS CASE
1 the negotiations and terms of settlement"); White v. Shen, 2011 WL 2790475, *2 (N.D. Cal. July 11,
2 2011) ("I conclude that the overriding factor is the beneficial effect of the settlement on the parties,
3 especially on the defendant concerned about bankruptcy absent a settlement. This outweighs the
4 other factors I have considered.").
5
Second, vacatur is appropriate because the judgment arises from a jury verdict and there is
6 therefore no risk that vacating it will alter precedent. Rather, the Parties are merely requesting
7 vacatur to implement their settlement and secure the release of Shell's supersedeas bond. See In re
8 Apollo Group Inc. Securities Litigation, 2012 WL 13 78677, * 10 (D. Ariz. April 20, 2012) ("Further,
9 concerns that are normally prevalent in considering whether to vacate a judgment, such as removing
10 precedent from case law are not present here. The Judgment, which represents the jury verdict, does
~
~
~
"ii
11 not itself vary precedential value that would facilitate the resolution of disputes in future cases.").
0
~
0
B
p.. "'
.,
.....l .;;
.....l .s
12
Third, vacatur is appropriate because, as far as the parties are aware, there are no third parties
::r: 1l
!::: E
13 whose interests would be affected by an order vacating the judgment. Thus, having the judgment
:.a'
I'?
14 remain in place is not itself meaningful. See White, 2011 WL 2790475 at *2 (court was unaware of
&'
15 any case that might implicate the issues litigated, so risk that future courts might have to consider
~
16 anew issues already litigated was a "somewhat neutral" factor); cf Ohio Willow Wood Co. v.
~
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?