SBAV LP v. Porter Bancorp, Inc. et al

Filing 243

MEMORANDUM OPINION granting 242 Motion to Dismiss; Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 12/1/15: Accordingly, the Memorandum Opinion and Order of 3/31/2015 197 and the Magistrate Judge's Order of 1/16/2015 179 are VACATED AS MOOT. cc: Counsel(DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-00710-TBR-DW
SBAV LP,

Plaintiff,

v.
PORTER BANCORP, INC., et al.,

Defendants,

v.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL
RESERVE SYSTEM, et al.

Intervenors.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation intervened in a discovery dispute between SBAV LP and Porter
Bancorp, Inc., to contest this Court’s prior opinion regarding the production of certain
bank-examination documents. See SBAV LP v. Porter Bancorp, Inc., No. 3:13-CV00710-TBR-DW, 2015 WL 5971591, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 14, 2015). Shortly after
setting a briefing schedule on that issue, however, the parties executed a confidential
settlement agreement. In light of that settlement, the parties jointly move to dismiss this
action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). R. 242 at 1
(Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice). Seeing no reason to refuse the parties’ request,
the Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice (R. 242) is GRANTED.
Because this controversy is now moot, the Agencies ask this Court to vacate its
earlier opinion, SBAV LP v. Porter Bancorp, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-00710-TBR, 2015 WL
1471020 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2015), as amended (W.D. Ky. Apr. 1, 2015), and that of the
Magistrate Judge too, as neither are subject to review. R. 241 at 1 (Motion to Vacate).

1

The Court may vacate interlocutory orders under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b) or its inherent, common law authority to control the administration of the case
before it. See Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App’x 949,
959 (6th Cir. 2004); Mallory v. Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273, 1282 (6th Cir. 1991); see also
Persistence Software, Inc. v. Object People, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 626, 627 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
Vacatur is generally appropriate to avoid entrenching an interlocutory decision rendered
unreviewable through no fault of the moving party. See U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v.
Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 25 (1994).

Such relief is warranted here:

Happenstance has frustrated the Agencies’ efforts to seek review of this Court’s prior
opinion—the Agencies’ diligence notwithstanding. See Sackman v. Liggett Grp., 189
F.R.D. 58, 59–60 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). Accordingly, the Memorandum Opinion and Order
of March 31, 2015 (R. 197) and the Magistrate Judge’s Order of January 16, 2015 (R.
179) are VACATED AS MOOT.
An appropriate Order will issue separate from this Memorandum Opinion.
Date:
cc:

December 1, 2015

Counsel of Record

2