[UPDATED PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 60(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

WHEREAS, on April 18, 2017, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Plaintiff First Financial Security, Inc. ("FFS") (Dkt. No. 134) and on August 21, 2017 the Court entered a Memorandum and Order denying the Freedom Equity Group, LLC's ("FEG") Motion for New Trial (Dkt. No. 175). FEG appealed the Judgment for the reasons stated in its Motion for New Trial (Dkt. Nos. 148 and 157).

WHEREAS, following the appeal, the parties conducted a joint Mediation on before Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Mediator Ann Julius under the auspices of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Mediation Program, with two other cases: (1) First Financial Security, Inc. v. Michael W. Jones, Insurance Distribution Consulting, LLC, and Supreme Alliance, LLC, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:17-cv-00773-BLF ("FFS v. Jones"); and (2) Kevin Do, Lue Lee, Tata Insixiengmay-Tran, and Polly Luangaphay v. First Financial Security, Inc., Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-55251, previously pending in the Central District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-07608-SVW-AJW.

WHEREAS, as a result of the Mediation, the parties entered into a confidential global settlement to resolve all three cases, FFS and FEG filed a Stipulated Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal without Prejudice, and FFS agreed that it would not oppose a motion by FEG to vacate the judgment in this case.

WHEREAS, in light of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd's recent retirement, FEG's Unopposed Motion to Vacate the Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. No. 189 (the "Motion")) was assigned to The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, serving as the General Duty Judge on the date of filing, June 12, 2018.

WHEREAS, FEG submitted a Supplemental Brief in Support of Unopposed Motion to Vacate the Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Supplemental Brief," Dkt. No. 192) in response to the Court's request to provide additional factual background in order to resolve the Motion (Dkt. No. 191, numbered paragraph 1).

WHEREAS, in response Court's inquiry regarding the disposition of the case if the judgment is vacated (Dkt. No. 191, numbered paragraph 2), FEG informed the Court that the parties have agreed as part of the settlement to the form of a [Proposed] Order of Dismissal of Entire Action Pursuant to Rule 41 providing as follows: "The Court having been informed by counsel for the parties that this action has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Rule 41(c), this action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs and with leave, upon good cause shown within ninety-five (95) days, to have this Order of Dismissal set aside and the action reinstated if the settlement is not consummated."

WHEREAS, the Court has considered FEG's arguments in its papers submitted in support of their motion to vacate, including its Supplemental Brief, and has weighed the relevant considerations as outlined in DHX, Inc. v. Allianz AGF Mat., Ltd., 425 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) and American Games, Inc. v. Trade Products, Inc., 142 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 1998). Balancing those factors, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to vacate the Judgment. The valid defenses that were waived by trial counsel are equitable considerations supporting vacating the judgment. The general doctrine that "judicial precedents are presumptively correct and valuable to the legal community as a whole" (U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994)), does not compel denial of FEG's motion to vacate under these circumstances. In light of FFS's non-opposition to the Motion and the complete settlement of this case, as well as the two related cases, the Court finds that there are no other considerations justifying denying the Motion.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the April 18, 2017 Judgment (Dkt. No. 134) is hereby VACATED. The Clerk of the Court is requested to annotate the docket for Dkt. No. 175 to cross-reference this Order and note that the Judgment and has now been vacated, and to take all necessary steps to ensure that the Judgment and has now been vacated.

The Court having been informed by counsel for the parties that this action has been settled, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Rule 41(c), this action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs and with leave, upon good cause shown within ninety-five (95) days, to have this Order of Dismissal set aside and the action reinstated if the settlement is not consummated.

This Order terminates Docket Number 189.

IT IS SO ORDERED.