York et al v. Tropic Air, Ltd. et al
Filing
109
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Tropic Air's 105 Motion to Vacate to Denied. (Signed by Judge John D. Rainey.) Parties notified. (yhausmann, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VICTORIA DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
DAVID YORK, et al,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TROPIC AIR, LTD., et al,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. V-10-55
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Tropic Air, Ltd.’s (“Tropic Air”) Motion to
Vacate (Dkt. No. 105), whereby Tropic Air moves the Court to vacate its March 28, 2012
Memorandum Opinion & Order denying Tropic Air’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Dkt. No. 97). Tropic Air offers no authority or argument in
support of its motion to vacate, but simply states that “the parties mediated this matter and
reached an agreement to settle this case.” (Dkt. No. 105 at 1.)
The Northern District of Texas has summarized the Supreme Court’s position on motions
to vacate by reason of settlement as follows:
The Supreme Court held that mootness by reason of settlement does not justify
vacatur of a judgment under review absent “exceptional circumstances,” and
those exceptional circumstances “do not include the mere fact that the settlement
agreement provides for vacatur.” [United States Bancorp Mortgage v. Bonner
Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 29 (1994)]. In reaching this conclusion, the
Supreme Court noted that a party seeking vacatur must demonstrate “equitable
entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of vacatur.” Id. at 26. The Supreme Court
further recognized that the public’s interest must be taken into account when
analyzing whether vacatur is justified: “Judicial precedents are presumptively
correct and valuable to the legal community as a whole. They are not merely the
property of private litigants and should stand unless a court concludes that the
public interest would be served by a vacatur.” Id. at 26 (quoting Izumi [Seimitsu
Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U.S. Philips Corp., 510 U.S. 27, 40 (1993)] (Stevens,
J., dissenting)).
1
Clever Devices, Ltd. v. Digital Recorders, Inc., 2004 WL 1265934, *1 (N.D. Tex. Jun. 3, 2004).
The Clever Devices court further recognized that “[a]lthough the specific issue before the
Supreme Court involved the propriety of the Supreme Court’s vacating the judgment of the
Court of Appeals,” numerous district courts “have found Bancorp to be a useful guide in
analyzing whether a district court should grant settlement-related vacatur.” Id. at *1-2 (collecting
cases).
Because Tropic Air has not demonstrated “exceptional circumstances” warranting
vacatur of the Court’s prior ruling on its motion to dismiss, Tropic Air’s Motion to Vacate (Dkt.
No. 105) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 22nd day of August, 2012.
____________________________________
JOHN D. RAINEY
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?