Rotech Healthcare Inc v. Huff
Filing
34
OPINION entered by Chief Judge Michael P. McCuskey on 7/22/2011. It is Ordered that the Agreed Motion to Vacate the Court's Opinion and Judgment entered March 8, 2011 33 is GRANTED. The court hereby vacates its Opinion 18 and the Judgment 19 entered on March 8, 2011. All claims of the parties are dismissed with prejudice and without an award of fees or costs. See written opinion. (DE, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 22 July, 2011 04:49:14 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION
_____________________________________________________________________________
ROTECH HEALTHCARE INC.
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
Case No. 09-CV-2243
)
SYNTHIA ANN HUFF,
)
)
Defendant.
)
OPINION
This case is before the court for ruling on an Agreed Motion to Vacate the Court’s Opinion
and Judgment Entered March 8, 2011 (#33) filed by Plaintiff, Rotech Healthcare Inc. (Rotech).
Rotech’s Motion (#33) is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On March 8, 2011, this court entered an Opinion (#18) which granted the Motion for
Summary Judgment (#9) filed by Defendant, Synthia Ann Huff. Judgment (#19) was therefore
entered in favor of Defendant and against Rotech. Rotech filed a Notice of Appeal (#23). This court
subsequently entered a text order and granted Defendant’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees
(#20). On June 3, 2011, an Amended Judgment (#30) was entered which included the award of
attorney’s fees.
On June 7, 2011, Rotech filed an Agreed Motion to Vacate Order on Motion for Attorney’s
Fees (#31). Rotech stated that the parties had participated in a lengthy Rule 33 settlement
conference conducted by the Settlement Conference Office of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
on May 4, 2011. Rotech further stated that, after additional conferences were conducted by the
Settlement Office, the parties reached a settlement of outstanding issues in late May. The settlement
resolved the issue of Defendant’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees, but this court was not
advised of the settlement before its text order was entered. Rotech stated that the parties agreed that
this court’s text order awarding attorney’s fees and the Amended Judgment should both be vacated
and the Motion for Attorney’s Fees should be dismissed. Rotech also stated that the parties agreed
that this court’s Opinion and Judgment entered on March 8, 2011, should be vacated in their
entirety. Rotech stated that the parties understood that this court lacked jurisdiction to take that
action while the case remained pending on appeal. Rotech asked this court to indicate pursuant to
Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure whether it would be willing to grant such relief.
Rotech stated that the parties agreed that, upon entry of an order vacating and withdrawing from the
record this court’s Opinion and Judgment, all claims of the parties would be dismissed with
prejudice and without an award of fees or costs pursuant to their settlement.
On June 28, 2011, this court entered a text order and granted the Agreed Motion to Vacate
(#31) filed by Rotech. This court vacated the text order entered on June 2, 2011 and the Amended
Judgment (#30) entered on June 3, 2011. This court stated that, based upon the agreement of the
parties, Defendant’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees (#20) was dismissed. This court also
stated that “pursuant to Rule 62.1(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court states that
it would grant an agreed motion to vacate the Opinion (#18) and Judgment (#19) entered on
3/8/2011 if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals remands the case for that purpose.”
On July 20, 2011, the Seventh Circuit entered an Order (#32). The Seventh Circuit
remanded the case to this court pursuant to Rule 12.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
for proceedings consistent with this court’s text order of June 28, 2011. The Seventh Circuit stated
that it would retain jurisdiction and that Rotech, as appellant, was ordered to file a status report with
the Seventh Circuit within five days of the district court’s ruling on the motion to vacate.
RULING
2
On July 21, 2011, Rotech filed an Agreed Motion to Vacate the Court’s Opinion and
Judgment Entered March 8, 2011 (#33). Rotech stated that, following the Seventh Circuit’s remand
order, this court now has the necessary jurisdiction to enter this relief. Rotech also stated that the
parties agreed that upon entry of an order vacating this court’s Opinion and Judgment of March 8,
2011, all claims of the parties should be dismissed with prejudice and without an award of fees or
costs pursuant to their settlement.1 Rotech stated that “[a]llowance of this motion is in the public
interest because it will facilitate the settlement and efficient disposition of a contentious dispute and
help conserve scarce judicial resources.” This court concludes that the Agreed Motion should be
granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Agreed Motion to Vacate the Court’s Opinion and Judgment Entered March 8, 2011
(#33) is GRANTED. This court hereby vacates its Opinion (#18) and the Judgment (#19) entered
on March 8, 2011.
(2) All claims of the parties are dismissed with prejudice and without an award of fees or
costs.
ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2011
s/ Michael P. McCuskey
MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
1
This court notes that Rotech has also asked that the Opinion be “withdrawn of record.”
That is not possible with the court’s electronic filing system.
3
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?