Predator International, Inc. v. Gamo Outdoor USA, Inc., 1-09-cv-00970 (COD June 16, 2014, Order) (Brimmer, J.)
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Settlement Does Not Justify Vacating Rule 11 Sanctions Order
The court denied the parties' motion to vacate the court's earlier Rule 11 sanctions order following settlement. "The Court appreciates the parties’ willingness to enter into settlement negotiations, as well as the fact that these negotiations have been successful. However, the parties make an unusual request as part of the settlement, namely, to vacate a properly issued order without any indication that the underlying factual or legal bases for the order were incorrect. The parties do not explain why this request is necessary or appropriate. . . . Plaintiff filed this case in a public forum. The motion for sanctions was fully briefed through unrestricted filings. Had the parties wished to resolve the dispute at issue in a private forum, such as through binding arbitration proceeding, they were at liberty to do so."