Some judges, when faced with a motion to vacate a decision in view of a pending settlement, do so without comment. Other judges balk at such requests. If the parties have relied on (and the court has expended) judicial resources to get to judgment, why should the court vacate once a winner and loser have been declared?
When faced with such a request back in June 2010 Judge Wolf ordered the parties to brief the issue. (I’m sure that made them happy.)
Download Wolf ordering briefing of vacatur request
After reviewing those briefs, Judge Wolf did agree to vacate an order of summary judgment / claim construction, as a precondition to a settlement agreement. The detailed decision explains how, with non-final judgments and other interlocutory orders, the district court maintains broad discretion to vacate. The decision also notes how the policy reasons for not vacating are very different before final judgment has entered.
In this case, the vacated order came early in the case, the parties had been actively pursuing settlement, and vacatur was necessary to bring the case to a close. So Judge Wolf determined that the public was better served by permitting settlement rather than requiring that the early order stand.
Download Lycos settlement decision
Lycos, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc., 07-11469-MLW (D. Mass. Dec. 23, 2010)
Comments