Fink-Carver v. Kuhn

Background

Jennifer Fink-Carver and Jason Fink sued the City of Pleasant Hill, Officer Kuhn, and Doe defendants over police contact with the plaintiffs on May 9, 2020. In an earlier order resolving cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted certain parts of the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and ruled that officers’ entry into Jennifer Fink-Carver’s residence was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. The court also denied Officer Kuhn qualified immunity on the entry issue.

The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal concerning issues from that order, including qualified immunity on the entry issue and the force used against Jennifer Fink-Carver involving canine contact. During the appeal, the parties participated in mediation and reached a tentative settlement. The settlement made vacating the unlawful-entry ruling a material condition. The defendants dismissed the Ninth Circuit appeal without prejudice, and the mandate issued on August 12, 2024.

Request to Vacate

The parties jointly asked the district court to vacate only the portions of the summary-judgment order addressing unlawful entry: pages 20:18–26:6, 29:12–13, and 29:21–22 of ECF No. 62. They relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which permits a district court to revise an order adjudicating fewer than all claims or parties before entry of a final judgment. The parties argued that vacatur would facilitate settlement, conserve judicial resources, and promote the policy favoring compromise settlements.

The stipulation stated that, if vacatur were granted, the litigation would be dismissed with prejudice after plaintiffs’ counsel received the settlement proceeds. The attached settlement agreement provided for a total payment of $587,500.00, subject to stated conditions, and required the plaintiffs to request dismissal of the entire civil action with prejudice within ten days after their attorneys received the proceeds. The order itself did not direct that dismissal.

Ruling

Judge Jeffrey S. White granted the parties’ stipulated request to vacate the specified portions of the prior summary-judgment order. The court cited the good cause shown by the parties’ tentative settlement and public-policy considerations favoring settlement. It vacated only the portions related to the unlawful-entry ruling and stated that the action would be advanced toward ending and the Ninth Circuit appeal would be rendered moot.

The order did not decide the merits of the underlying civil-rights claims anew, did not rule on the settlement’s payment, and did not itself dismiss the case.