Brian Parker, et al v. ABC Debt Relief LTD Co.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-11291 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: EHJ , Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 06/10/2015; denying motion for damages Rule 38 filed by Appellees Mr. Brian Parker, Mr. Michael Frank, Mr. Jeremy Cozart, Ms. Victoria Castillo, Ms. Dana Block, Mr. Johnny L. Keel, Ms. Jessica Casey, Mr. Gregory A. Burk, Ms. Vallery S. Mann, Mr. Jo Minaya, Mr. Christopher J. Pitre, Mr. Tim Carr, Mr. John R. Nelson and Ms. Coddie B. Dean [7851069-2]; denying motion for costs filed by Appellees Mr. Brian Parker, Mr. Michael Frank, Mr. Jeremy Cozart, Ms. Victoria Castillo, Ms. Dana Block, Mr. Johnny L. Keel, Ms. Jessica Casey, Mr. Gregory A. Burk, Ms. Vallery S. Mann, Mr. Jo Minaya, Mr. Christopher J. Pitre, Mr. Tim Carr, Mr. John R. Nelson and Ms. Coddie B. Dean [7851069-3] [14-11291]
Case: 14-11291
Document: 00513050594
Page: 1
Date Filed: 05/20/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 14-11291
Summary Calendar
FILED
May 20, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
BRIAN PARKER; MICHAEL FRANK; JEREMY COZART; VICTORIA
CASTILLO; DANA BLOCK; JOHNNY L. KEEL; JESSICA CASEY;
GREGORY A. BURK; VALLERY S. MANN; JO MINAYA; CHRISTOPHER J.
PITRE; TIM CARR; JOHN R. NELSON; CODDIE B. DEAN,
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
LLOYD WARD P.C., doing business as Lloyd Ward & Associates,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC 3:10-CV-1332
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lloyd Ward P.C. appeals the district court’s modification of final
judgment under Rule 60(a). Ward did not respond to the Rule 60(a) motion
below; accordingly, we review only for plain error and find none. See Ward v.
Rhode, 544 F. App’x 349, 351 (5th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (citing Douglass v.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*
Case: 14-11291
Document: 00513050594
Page: 2
Date Filed: 05/20/2015
No. 14-11291
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)). Although
the jury awarded fourteen plaintiffs damages in this Fair Labor Standards Act
case, the district court’s final judgment listed only ten. After learning of this
mistake, the district court modified the judgment to include all fourteen
plaintiffs. Rule 60(a) explicitly allows district courts to correct these types of
transcription errors. See Rivera v. PNS Stores, Inc., 647 F.3d 188, 193-94 (5th
Cir. 2011). There is no doubt that the court’s mistake was inadvertent because
the jury unambiguously found in favor of fourteen plaintiffs and no subsequent
order altered the jury’s findings. Because the district court did not plainly err,
we AFFIRM. Appellees’ motion for sanctions is DENIED.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?