Taie v. Ten Bridges LLC

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 MARY TAIE, et al., CASE NO. C21-0526-JCC 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 TEN BRIDGES, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on a stipulated motion to declare portions of a prior 16 summary judgment order and a final judgment to be non-precedential (Dkt. No. 177). The Court 17 noted deficiencies in the parties’ justification for the motion and ordered them to show cause. 18 (Dkt. No. 178 at 1–2.) The parties timely responded. (See generally Dkt. No. 179.) Having 19 thoroughly considered the submissions and the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES the 20 motion for the reasons described below. 21 The portions of the underlying order at issue here decided the legal question of whether 22 agreements between the parties were enforceable. (See Dkt. No. 144 at 8.) The Court found that 23 the agreements were unenforceable because they violated public policy. (Id. at 8–10.) In reaching 24 this conclusion, the Court conducted a detailed legal analysis, thoroughly considered both 25 parties’ arguments and the relevant law, and explained its finding. (Id.) The final judgment at 26 issue documents the Court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the amount awarded against 1 Defendants. (Dkt. No. 154 at 1.) 2 As previously noted in the order to show cause, (Dkt. No. 178 at 2), it is unusual to 3 request the Court retroactively declare a portion of an order or a judgment to be non- 4 precedential. Even after responding to the order to show case, the parties still do not have a 5 compelling justification for the Court to grant the motion. 6 The parties cite no authority under which a federal district court may retroactively declare 7 an order or judgment non-precedential. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 177, 179.) It appears such a 8 declaration may be within the discretion of the district court judge. See Cont’l W. Ins. Co. v. 9 Costco Wholesale Corp., 2011 WL 3583226, slip op. at 3 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (explaining that 10 some “district court judges designate some of their own decisions as . . . ‘Non-Precedential’”). 11 The effect of declaring a decision non-precedential is to “signal to another court that the court 12 issuing the decision did not intend it to contribute to shaping the law.” Id. Unpublished “district 13 court opinions show that the law was developing––not that it was already clearly established.” 14 Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1230 (9th Cir. 2018). 15 The parties say that, if granted, their motion will bring finality to this litigation. (Dkt. No. 16 179 at 1.) At no point do the parties argue that there is any defect with the legal basis or rationale 17 for the Court’s prior order. (See generally Dkt. No. 179.) Without a compelling legal 18 justification, the parties’ arguments are unpersuasive and do not address why the Court’s decision 19 should not be precedential and “contribute to shaping the law.” Cont’l W. Ins. Co, 2011 WL 20 3583226, slip op. at 3. 21 As to finality, the parties have not explained how or why a declaration would bring 22 finality to this case.1 (See generally Dkt. No. 179.) In fact, contrary to the notion of finality, the 23 parties appear to seek a non-precedential declaration so that Defendant may relitigate the 24 1 The parties argue in general terms that Ten Bridges requested the Court declare the prior order 25 and judgment to be non-precedential “to try to bring as much finality as possible for the parties and the courts after years of litigation,” (Dkt. No. 179 at 1), and to “ensur[e] that this litigation is 26 at an end for all parties and the courts,” (id. at 3). 1 enforceability issue in any subsequent cases. (See id. at 2.)2 The finality argument is also 2 uncompelling given that the parties have already settled and dismissed their respective cross- 3 appeals. (See Dkt. No. 177 at 1.) A declaration that some portion of summary judgment was non- 4 precedential would have no bearing on the finality of the settlement between the parties. 5 Ultimately, these arguments do not support the parties’ contention that declaring the order and 6 judgment to be non-precedential would bring finality to the courts (who would bear the burden 7 of re-litigation) or to the parties (who have already settled). 8 Accordingly, the parties’ motion (Dkt. No. 177) is DENIED. 9 10 DATED this 10th day of April 2025. 11 A 12 13

14 John C. Coughenour 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 2 The parties argue that granting the motion would allow for “portions of the order that were specifically deemed not precedential [to be] open to being reargued in any later litigation over 26 [Ten Bridge’s] former business practices.” (Dkt. No. 179 at 2.)