The Dentists Insurance Company v. Yousefian

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [6] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE [8] THE DENTISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. C20-1076-RSL [9] 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S 11 v. MOTION TO VACATE 12 JOSEPH Z. YOUSEFIAN, et al., 13 Defendants. [14] This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to partially vacate the Court’s [15] Order on the parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 128). Having considered [16] the parties’ submissions, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion. [17] This case involves an insurance coverage dispute between defendant, a dentist, and his [18] insurer, The Dentists Insurance Company (“TDIC”). On June 21, 2023, the Court granted [19] defendant summary judgment on (1) his scope of coverage claim, and (2) his claim of insurance [20] bad faith with regard to plaintiff’s failure to reasonably investigate defendant’s claim. Dkt. [21] # 117; see also Dkts. # 57, # 67. After entry of the Order, the parties settled all claims, and the [22] Court dismissed the case without prejudice. Dkt. # 127. As a result of the settlement, plaintiff [23] requests this Court “vacate its finding of fact that TDIC acted in bad faith with respect to the [24] subject claims.” Dkt. # 128 (citing Dkt. # 117). [25] When a case is mooted by settlement, district courts may vacate their own unreviewed [26] judgments if vacatur is justified by a balance of equitable interests. Am. Games, Inc. v. Trade [27] Prod., Inc., 142 F.3d 1164 , 1168–70 (9th Cir. 1998). Courts may consider several factors in [28] 1 balancing the equities, for example, (1) the value of judicial precedent to the community, (2) 2 judicial resources invested into resolving the dispute, and (3) the precedent set by the vacatur 3 and whether the vacatur would have the unintended effect of discouraging early settlements. See 4 U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 , 26–28 (1994); Chartis Specialty 5 Ins. Co. v. Queen Anne HS, LLC, No. C11-335RAJ, 2012 WL 3780345 , at *3–4 (W.D. Wash. 6 Aug. 31, 2012). 7 Plaintiff has not demonstrated any equitable interest that would favor vacating the Order, 8 nor is there any indication that the settlement was contingent upon vacatur. See Dkt. # 128. 9 Therefore, in balancing the equities, this Court finds that the precedential value of the Order, 10 along with the judicial resources expended, does not justify vacatur. [12] 13 DATED this1st day of April, 2024. [14] 15 A [16] Robert S. Lasnik 17 United States District Judge