Liberty Life Insurance Company v. Myers et al

Filing 308

ORDER that defendants Estate of Donald D. Myers, Erin Stoloff and Kirsten Ruggiano's Motions to Amend or Clarify Judgment 297 , 298 are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall replace the CM/ECF Docket Entry Summary fo r the Judgment, Docket no. 294 , with "Judgment (see attached Judgment)." The Court's actual signed Judgment, entered as Doc. 294 , shall not be deleted, amended, or modified. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 4/15/2014.(ALS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Liberty Life Insurance Company,
No. CV 10-02024-PHX-JAT

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

Eric LungMyers, et al.,

ORDER

13
14
15
16
17

Defendants.
Pending before the Court is defendant Estate of Donald D. Myers’ Motion (Doc.
297) to Amend or Clarify Judgment (Doc. 294) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). Also pending is defendants Erin Stoloff and Kirsten Ruggiano’s
substantially similar Motion (Doc. 298) to Amend or Clarify Judgment (Doc. 294)

18

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Plaintiff has filed a Response opposing

19

both motions (Doc. 302) as unnecessary, and defendants Stoloff and Ruggiano have filed

20

a Reply (Doc. 303). For the following reasons, the Court denies the defendants’ motions

21

to amend or clarify the Judgment.

22

On February 12, 2013, the Court entered an Order resolving Plaintiff’s motion for

23

partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and directing the parties to notify the Court

24

of what claims, if any, remained for trial. (Doc. 280). Plaintiff subsequently dismissed all

25

remaining claims against the various defendants. (Doc. 283). After carefully considering

26

Plaintiff’s Proposed Form of Judgment (Doc. 282) and the various defendants’ Objections

27

(Docs. 284–85, 88), on September 17, 2013, the Court entered the following Judgment, in

28

relevant part:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

IT IS ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and
against Defendant Eric LungMyers (a/k/a Eric L. Myers, Eric Lung-Myers)
on Plaintiff’s fraud claim, against Defendant Erin Sarah Stoloff (f/k/a Erin
Sarah Myers) on Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim, against Defendant
Kirsten Anne Ruggiano (f/k/a Kirsten Anne Myers) on Plaintiff’s unjust
enrichment claim, and against Defendant the Estate of Donald D. Myers, by
and through Personal Representatives Brooke M. Wilson and Heather M.
Craig (the “Estate of Donald D. Myers”) on Plaintiff’s conversion claim, in
the amount of $870,103.80, jointly and severally, plus post-judgment
interest at 0.13%, until Judgment is paid in full.
However, the amount recoverable from Defendant Erin Sarah Stoloff
is capped at $178,031.00; the amount recoverable from Defendant Kirsten
Anne Ruggiano is capped at $300,620.00; and the amount recoverable from
the Estate of Donald D. Myers is capped at $478,651.00 and is reduced from
$478,651.00 by any amounts recovered from Defendant Erin Sarah Stoloff
and Defendant Kirsten Anne Ruggiano.
Further, the amount recoverable from Defendant Eric LungMyers is
reduced by any amounts received from Defendants Erin Sarah Stoloff,
Kirsten Anne Ruggiano, and the Estate of Donald D. Myers. Additionally,
any amounts received from Defendant Eric LungMyers in excess of
$391,452.80 shall reduce, pro rata, the amounts recoverable from
Defendants Erin Sarah Stoloff and Kirsten Anne Ruggiano; which shall
resultantly reduce the amount recoverable from the Estate of Donald D.
Myers.

17
18
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice all remaining
claims against all defendants other than those listed in this Judgment.
(Doc. 294 at 1–2).

20

On October 14 and 15, 2013, the defendants timely1 filed their motions to amend or

21

clarify the Judgment (Docs. 297–98). The crux of both motions to amend or clarify the

22

Judgment is that because the summary of the Judgment that accompanies the CM/ECF

23

docket entry contains only the first paragraph of the Judgment (see Docket Entry no. 294),

24

the “judgment” against each defendant mistakenly appears as $870,103.80 and not the

25

lesser amounts specified in the Court’s actual Judgment (Doc. 294). (Doc. 297 at 3 (“The

26

judgment against [the Estate of Donald D. Myers] is shown as $870,103.80, not

27

$478,651.00 as should have been stated in the Judgment.”); Doc. 298 at 5 (“[Stoloff and
1

28

Any motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) must “be filed
no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
-2-

1

Ruggiano] should not be identified as being held liable for any more than $178,031.00 and

2

$300,620.00 respectively, as [Plaintiff] requested and as this Court recognized.” (internal

3

citations omitted))).

4

The defendants appear to conflate the Clerk of the Court’s CM/ECF docket

5

summary, which engenders no legal effect, with the actual, legally significant, signed

6

Judgment of the Court attached to the docket entry as Doc. 294. The Court reminds the

7

defendants that the Court’s actual signed Judgment is the Judgment in this case, not the

8
9
10
11
12

Clerk of the Court’s unsigned and incomplete summary of the Court’s Judgment.
The Court has reviewed the text of its Judgment (Doc. 294) and finds that the
second paragraph (quoted above) accurately and clearly establishes the maximum liability
of the Estate of Donald D. Myers, Stoloff, and Ruggiano as $478,651.00, $178,031.00,
and $300,620.00, respectively. Moreover, the Court finds that its Judgment clearly
identifies how one defendant’s payment to Plaintiff will reduce the liability of the other

13
14
15
16
17

defendants. Consequently, the Court finds that its Judgment need not be amended to
further clarify the respective liabilities of the various defendants.
Additionally, defendants the Estate of Donald D. Meyer’s, Stoloff, and Ruggiano
appear to be concerned that Plaintiff may attempt to enforce the Judgment against each
defendant in the full amount of $870,103.80, jointly and severally, instead of the actual,

18

lesser amounts adjudicated by the Court. (See Doc. 297 at 2 (“if the judgment as it stands

19

is recorded, the amount of the judgment lien may be listed on that record at that greater

20

amount”); Doc. 298 at 2 (vaguely alleging that “manifest injustice” may occur if the

21

Judgment is not amended). The Court notes that, in light of the plain language of the

22

Court’s Judgment (Doc. 294), any attempt by Plaintiff to enforce an award greater than

23

the caps specified by the Court would require Plaintiff to materially misrepresent the

24

Court’s Judgment in bad faith. The defendants present neither allegations nor evidence

25

that Plaintiff has or intends to so act. Nonetheless, to avoid any potential

26

misrepresentation by Plaintiff (or misunderstanding by a third-party) that the incomplete

27

Docket Summary could possibly engender, the Court will order the Clerk of the Court to

28

remove the incomplete Docket Entry Summary at Docket no. 294.
-3-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED that defendants Estate of Donald D. Myers, Erin Stoloff and

3

Kirsten Ruggiano’s Motions to Amend or Clarify Judgment (Docs. 297–98) are DENIED.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall replace the

5

CM/ECF Docket Entry Summary for the Judgment, Docket no. 294, with “Judgment (see

6

attached Judgment).” The Court’s actual signed Judgment, entered as Doc. 294, shall not

7

be deleted, amended, or modified.

8

Dated this 15th day of April, 2014.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-