Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc., and Ringsby-Pacific, Ltd. v. Western Conference of Teamsters

This case has been briefed, argued, and submitted for decision to a panel of this court. Various motions to intervene have been filed and are awaiting rulings.

On February 8, 1982, the parties to the action by letter signed by Joseph M. Alioto notified the court that the parties to the litigation had settled their differences and have agreed that the judgment of the district court may be vacated and the appeal dismissed. No objection has been received by opposing counsel and we therefore consider that the litigation is moot.

Under similar circumstances, the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit said:

Cover v. Schwartz, 133 F.2d 541, 546-47 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 748 , 63 S.Ct. 1158 , 87 L.Ed. 1703 (1942) (footnotes omitted).

We find the distinction between litigants who are and are not responsible for rendering their case moot at the appellate level persuasive. If the effect of post-judgment settlements were automatically to vacate the trial court’s judgment, any litigant dissatisfied with a trial court’s findings would be able to have them wiped from the books.

“It would be quite destructive to the principle of judicial finality to put such a litigant in a…