Exceptional Circumstances Justifying Vacatur When Lower Court Decision Mooted by Settlement: Repeat Litigants Slide into Home with Second Circuit Decision - Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Pacific Trading Cards, Inc.

Abstract

At heart in the scholarship advocating Alternative Dispute Resolution are two interests: one, that using processes such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration conserve public and private resources otherwise expended on litigation; and two, that in certain circumstances, these alternative processes may provide better justice than would occur in litigation.\u27 However, once litigation of a case has commenced, and an adverse judgment has been made against one party, that party may not be willing to settle the case unless the adverse judgement is vacated.4 Historically, most state and federal courts would routinely grant vacatur when requested by litigants who settled their disputes.\u27 Since the Supreme Court held in United States Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership that federal courts should not vacate decisions mooted by settlement absent exceptional circumstances, federal courts have been reluctant to grant such requests.6 This presumption against vacatur arguable discourages settlement. It is against this backdrop that the Second Circuit considered the facts of Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Pacific Trading Cards, Inc