United States v. 2020-08-18 | 18-17435 | INDIVIDUAL DIRECT LENDERS V. DAVID BLATT | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: USA COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE COMPANY,
Debtor,
______________________________
INDIVIDUAL DIRECT LENDERS; LLC
PLAINTIFFS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DAVID BLATT,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
COMPASS PARTNERS, LLC;
COMPASS USA SPE, LLC,
Defendants.
No. 18-17435
D.C. No.
2:07-cv-00892-RCJ-GWF
MEMORANDUM
*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
AUG 18 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Submitted May 5, 2020
**
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
David Blatt (Blatt) appeals an order from the district court denying a motion
to vacate a judgment. Because the district court did not evaluate factors relevant to
a decision on vacatur, we consider de novo whether the undisputed facts support
the district court’s ruling. See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 n.6 (9th Cir.
2005), as amended. Reviewing de novo, we affirm.
To evaluate the appropriateness of vacatur, courts may consider: (1) “the
consequences and attendant hardships of dismissal or refusal to dismiss;” (2) “the
competing values of the finality of judgment, and right to relitigation of
unreviewed disputes;” (3) “the motives of the party whose voluntary action mooted
the case;” and (4) the public interest against allowing a losing party to “buy and
bury” an unfavorable decision. American Games, Inc. v. Trade Prods., Inc., 142
F.3d 1164, 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
The equities in this case weigh against vacatur. There was no impediment to
dismissal of the case, as no party would be harmed by dismissal. The motive
* *
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2

of the person seeking to vacate the judgment was well-known: the movant did not
want this judgment against him to remain part of the public record. There were no
unresolved issues, and the public policy interest in disallowing parties to “buy and
bury” a jury verdict weighed in favor of denying vacatur. On balance, therefore,
we are not inclined to conclude that the district court erred in denying the motion
for vacatur. See U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 27
(1994) (“To allow a party . . . to employ the secondary remedy of vacatur as a
refined form of collateral attack on the judgment would-quite apart from any
considerations of fairness to the parties-disturb the orderly operation of the federal
judicial system.”).
AFFIRMED.
3