The Dentists Insurance Company v. Yousefian

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 1, 2024
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01076
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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. 11 12 13 DATED this1st day of April, 2024. 14 15 A

16 Robert S. Lasnik 17 United States District Judge

19 20

22 23 24 25 26 27 28