Lythgoe et al v. Bank of The West et al

Filing 81

ORDER BY JUDGE JEREMY FOGEL DENYING 73 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO VACATE ORDER OF DISMISSAL. (jflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C a s e No. C 07-2300 JF (HRL) O R D E R DENYING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO VACATE ORDER OF D IS M IS S A L ( JF L C 1 ) **E-Filed 1/26/2010** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION TRACIE LYTHGOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF THE WEST, et al., Case Number C 07-2300 JF (HRL) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO VACATE ORDER OF DISMISSAL [re: docket no. 73] Defendants. On October 26, 2009, the Court dismissed the above-captioned matter with prejudice. The Court retained jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal only if the agreed consideration for settlement was not delivered within ninety days. It is undisputed that the consideration has been delivered. Declaration of Patricia Gillette ¶¶ 2-4. Accordingly, at present this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs' request to vacate the dismissal or their related administrative motion to file that request under seal. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377-79 (1994). Plaintiffs' remedy would appear to be a motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' pending motions will be denied without prejudice. The Court expresses no opinion as to the merits of a prospective motion pursuant to Rule 60(b). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 C a s e No. C 07-2300 JF (HRL) O R D E R DENYING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO VACATE ORDER OF D IS M I S S A L ( JF L C 1 ) IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 26, 2010 JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

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?