C&C Properties, Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Company

E.D. California

C&C Properties, Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Company

DecidedJanuary 27, 2025

Docket1:14-cv-01889

StatusUnknown

This text of C&C Properties, Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Company (C&C Properties, Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C&C Properties, Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Company, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 || Raymond A. Cardozo (SBN 173263) Email: rcardozo@reedsmith.com 2 |} REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 3|| San Francisco, CA 94105-3659 Phone:+1 415 543 8700 4|| Fax: +1 415 391 8269 Kasey J. Curtis (SBN 268173) Email: kcurtis@reedsmith.com 6|| REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 7\| Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514 Telephone: +1 213 457 8000 8 || Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080 9|| Attorneys for Defendant SHELL PIPELINE COMPANY 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT & 11 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 C & C PROPERTIES, INC., a California CASE NO.: 1:14-cv-01889-LHR-CDB = 13 | corporation; JEC PANAMA, LLC, a California JOINT MOTION TO VACATE eae cone □□ en me JUDGMENT AGAINST SHELL AND , a Velaware limited liabdl ity company, DISMISS CASE 15 Plaintiff 2 ainults, JUDGE: Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal Zz 16 vs MAG. JUDGE: Hon. Christopher D. Baker 17! SHELL PIPELINE COMPANY, a Delaware 18 limited partnership; ALON USA PARAMOUNT PETROLEUM CORPORATION, a Delaware 19 corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 0 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 JOINT MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AGAINST SHELL AND DISMISS CASE 2 Plaintiffs C&C Properties, Inc., JEC Panama, LLC, and Wings Way, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Shell Pipeline Company (‘Shell’) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their 4|| undersigned counsel, jointly move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and 5|| Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) for an order vacating the amended judgment rendered in 6|| this case against Shell and dismissing this case with prejudice. Following entry of the amended 7|| judgment, both Plaintiffs and Shell appealed to the Ninth Circuit. As part of an appellate mediation 8 || in connection with those appeals, the Parties agreed to settle their dispute. Payment has been made pursuant to the terms of that settlement agreement. To implement the settlement and secure the 10|| release of the supersedeas bond Shell previously posted, the Parties jointly request that the amended i 11 || judgment be vacated as to Shell and that this case be dismissed with prejudice.

. : 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) permits a district court, “[o]n motion and just : 13]| terms,” to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for 14]| specified reasons, including that “(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged . . . or 2 : 15|| applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or [{] (6) [for] any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)-(6). Rule 60(b) vests district courts with “equitable discretion when reviewing [their] own judgments.” American Games, Inc. v. Trade Products, Inc., 142 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 1998). When considering whether an order vacating a judgment, or “vacatur,” is 19|| appropriate, district courts employ an “equitable balancing” test under which they are tasked with 20 || assessing “whether to vacate [their] judgment in light of ‘the consequences and attendant hardships of dismissal or refusal to dismiss’ and ‘the competing values of finality of judgment and right to 22|| relitigation of unreviewed disputes.’” Jd. at 1168 (quoting Diley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1370-71 (9th Cir. 1995)). Here, applying Rule 60(b)’s equitable balancing test and given the circumstances 24 || that prompted the Parties’ joint request, vacatur is warranted. 25 First, vacatur is appropriate given that it is jointly requested by the Parties as part of a broader settlement. Click Entertainment v. JYP Entm’t Co., 2009 WL 3030212, *2 (D. Haw. Sept. 271.22, 2009) (“vacating the Verdict and Amended Judgment was contemplated as part of settlement (‘though not made a condition of settlement), and thus the Court should, where appropriate, support

1 || the negotiations and terms of settlement”); White v. Shen, 2011 WL 2790475, *2 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2|| 2011) (“I conclude that the overriding factor is the beneficial effect of the settlement on the parties, 3|| especially on the defendant concerned about bankruptcy absent a settlement. This outweighs the 4|| other factors I have considered.”’). 5 Second, vacatur is appropriate because the judgment arises from a jury verdict and there is 6|| therefore no risk that vacating it will alter precedent. Rather, the Parties are merely requesting vacatur to implement their settlement and secure the release of Shell’s supersedeas bond. See In re 8 || Apollo Group Inc. Securities Litigation, 2012 WL 1378677, *10 (D. Ariz. April 20, 2012) (“Further, concerns that are normally prevalent in considering whether to vacate a judgment, such as removing 10|| precedent from case law are not present here. The Judgment, which represents the jury verdict, does i not itself vary precedential value that would facilitate the resolution of disputes in future cases.”).

. : 12 Third, vacatur is appropriate because, as far as the parties are aware, there are no third parties = : whose interests would be affected by an order vacating the judgment. Thus, having the judgment : 14|| remain in place is not itself meaningful. See White, 2011 WL 2790475 at *2 (court was unaware of : 15\\ any case that might implicate the issues litigated, so risk that future courts might have to consider j 16|| anew issues already litigated was a “somewhat neutral” factor); cf Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. 17|| Thermo-Ply, Inc., 769 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1069 (E.D. Tex. 2011) (vacatur of judgment invalidating patent was inappropriate in part because “[t]here [wa]s a real chance that other parties ... w[ould] 19]| become involved in litigation over the patent.”). 20 For these reasons, the parties respectfully request that an order vacating the judgment as to Shell pursuant to the parties’ joint motion be entered and that the case then be dismissed pursuant to 22 || Rule 41(a)(2). 23 DATED: January 17, 2025 REED SMITH LLP 25 By: __/s/ Kasey J. Curtis 26 Kasey J. Curtis Attorneys for Defendant SHELL PIPELINE 27 COMPANY 28

DATED: January 17, 2025 THOMAS VOGELE & ASSOCIATES, APC 2 3 By: ___/s/Thomas Vogele Thomas Vogele 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs C & C PROPERTIES, INC., JEC PANAMA, LLC, and WINGS WAY, LLC 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. |s55 DATED: [L/2/O8' LM Nar) 9 □□

10 Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal 2 11 2 12

xz 13 FE

A 14

15 Zz 16 E 17 I, Kasey J. Curtis, attest that as the ECF filer of this Stipulation, I obtained concurrence for this filing from all signatories to this document. 19 DATED: January 17, 2025 REED SMITH LLP 21 2 By: ___/s/ Kasey J. Curtis Kasey J. Curtis 23) Attorneys for Defendant SHELL PIPELINE COMPANY 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 || Raymond A. Cardozo (SBN 173263) Email: rcardozo@reedsmith.com 2 |} REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 3|| San Francisco, CA 94105-3659 Phone:+1 415 543 8700 4|| Fax: +1 415 391 8269 Kasey J. Curtis (SBN 268173) Email: kcurtis@reedsmith.com 6|| REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 7\| Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514 Telephone: +1 213 457 8000 8 || Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080 9|| Attorneys for Defendant SHELL PIPELINE COMPANY 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT & 11 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 C & C PROPERTIES, INC., a California CASE NO.: 1:14-cv-01889-LHR-CDB = 13 | corporation; JEC PANAMA, LLC, a California JOINT MOTION TO VACATE eae cone □□ en me JUDGMENT AGAINST SHELL AND , a Velaware limited liabdl ity company, DISMISS CASE 15 Plaintiff 2 ainults, JUDGE: Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal Zz 16 vs MAG. JUDGE: Hon. Christopher D. Baker 17! SHELL PIPELINE COMPANY, a Delaware 18 limited partnership; ALON USA PARAMOUNT PETROLEUM CORPORATION, a Delaware 19 corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 0 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 JOINT MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AGAINST SHELL AND DISMISS CASE 2 Plaintiffs C&C Properties, Inc., JEC Panama, LLC, and Wings Way, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Shell Pipeline Company (‘Shell’) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their 4|| undersigned counsel, jointly move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and 5|| Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) for an order vacating the amended judgment rendered in 6|| this case against Shell and dismissing this case with prejudice. Following entry of the amended 7|| judgment, both Plaintiffs and Shell appealed to the Ninth Circuit. As part of an appellate mediation 8 || in connection with those appeals, the Parties agreed to settle their dispute. Payment has been made pursuant to the terms of that settlement agreement. To implement the settlement and secure the 10|| release of the supersedeas bond Shell previously posted, the Parties jointly request that the amended i 11 || judgment be vacated as to Shell and that this case be dismissed with prejudice.

. : 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) permits a district court, “[o]n motion and just : 13]| terms,” to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for 14]| specified reasons, including that “(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged . . . or 2 : 15|| applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or [{] (6) [for] any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)-(6). Rule 60(b) vests district courts with “equitable discretion when reviewing [their] own judgments.” American Games, Inc. v. Trade Products, Inc., 142 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 1998). When considering whether an order vacating a judgment, or “vacatur,” is 19|| appropriate, district courts employ an “equitable balancing” test under which they are tasked with 20 || assessing “whether to vacate [their] judgment in light of ‘the consequences and attendant hardships of dismissal or refusal to dismiss’ and ‘the competing values of finality of judgment and right to 22|| relitigation of unreviewed disputes.’” Jd. at 1168 (quoting Diley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1370-71 (9th Cir. 1995)). Here, applying Rule 60(b)’s equitable balancing test and given the circumstances 24 || that prompted the Parties’ joint request, vacatur is warranted. 25 First, vacatur is appropriate given that it is jointly requested by the Parties as part of a broader settlement. Click Entertainment v. JYP Entm’t Co., 2009 WL 3030212, *2 (D. Haw. Sept. 271.22, 2009) (“vacating the Verdict and Amended Judgment was contemplated as part of settlement (‘though not made a condition of settlement), and thus the Court should, where appropriate, support

1 || the negotiations and terms of settlement”); White v. Shen, 2011 WL 2790475, *2 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2|| 2011) (“I conclude that the overriding factor is the beneficial effect of the settlement on the parties, 3|| especially on the defendant concerned about bankruptcy absent a settlement. This outweighs the 4|| other factors I have considered.”’). 5 Second, vacatur is appropriate because the judgment arises from a jury verdict and there is 6|| therefore no risk that vacating it will alter precedent. Rather, the Parties are merely requesting vacatur to implement their settlement and secure the release of Shell’s supersedeas bond. See In re 8 || Apollo Group Inc. Securities Litigation, 2012 WL 1378677, *10 (D. Ariz. April 20, 2012) (“Further, concerns that are normally prevalent in considering whether to vacate a judgment, such as removing 10|| precedent from case law are not present here. The Judgment, which represents the jury verdict, does i not itself vary precedential value that would facilitate the resolution of disputes in future cases.”).

. : 12 Third, vacatur is appropriate because, as far as the parties are aware, there are no third parties = : whose interests would be affected by an order vacating the judgment. Thus, having the judgment : 14|| remain in place is not itself meaningful. See White, 2011 WL 2790475 at *2 (court was unaware of : 15\\ any case that might implicate the issues litigated, so risk that future courts might have to consider j 16|| anew issues already litigated was a “somewhat neutral” factor); cf Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. 17|| Thermo-Ply, Inc., 769 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1069 (E.D. Tex. 2011) (vacatur of judgment invalidating patent was inappropriate in part because “[t]here [wa]s a real chance that other parties ... w[ould] 19]| become involved in litigation over the patent.”). 20 For these reasons, the parties respectfully request that an order vacating the judgment as to Shell pursuant to the parties’ joint motion be entered and that the case then be dismissed pursuant to 22 || Rule 41(a)(2). 23 DATED: January 17, 2025 REED SMITH LLP 25 By: __/s/ Kasey J. Curtis 26 Kasey J. Curtis Attorneys for Defendant SHELL PIPELINE 27 COMPANY 28