Zen-Noh Hay Incorporated v. Knight Ag Sourcing LLC et al

Filing 90

ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Order (Doc. 89 ) is granted, and a separate Amended Order will issue. See the attached order for additional information. Signed by Judge Steven P. Logan on 9/8/2021. (RMW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Zen-Noh Hay, Inc.,

9
10

Plaintiff,
vs.

11
12
13
14

Knight Ag Sourcing LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-20-00456-PHX-SPL
ORDER

15

Before the Court is Plaintiff Zen-Noh Hay, Inc.’s Motion to Amend Order. (Doc.

16

89). On August 19, 2021, the Court issued an Order (Doc. 88) granting Plaintiff’s Motion

17

for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 82). In the Order, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion “in full”

18

and awarded $54,361.14 in reasonable attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 88 at 1, 7). Plaintiff’s Motion

19

for Attorneys’ Fees did request $54,361.14 in the introductory paragraph. (Doc. 81 at 1).

20

But the Motion requested $62,599.74 in three other places (Doc. 82 at 9), and the

21

Declaration of Robert Charles filed in support of the Motion stated that Plaintiff’s fees

22

amounted to $62,599.74 (Doc 82-1 at 5). Plaintiff’s Reply also requested $62,599.74. (Doc.

23

85 at 1, 3, 5). In the instant Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to amend its August 19, 2021

24

Order to award Plaintiff its full attorneys’ fees in the amount of $62,599.74. (Doc. 89).

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(a) allows the Court to “correct a

26

clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in

27

a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Rule 60(a) may properly be invoked “to

28

conform the judgment to the original intention of the court.” Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d

1

1455, 1457 (9th Cir. 1993). Though typically used to correct clerical errors made by the

2

Court, Rule 60(a) has also been used to correct clerical errors made by a party. Mannick v.

3

Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., No. C 03-5905 PJH, 2007 WL 2781093, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

4

Sept. 21, 2007) (“While the court was able to locate no Ninth Circuit authority holding that

5

Rule 60(a) is or is not limited [to correcting clerical errors by the clerk or the court], it does

6

appear that other circuits have applied the rule to clerical errors by parties.”) Here, the

7

Court’s express intention was to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees in full. Thus,

8

the Court will amend the amount awarded to $62,599.74.

9
10
11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Order (Doc.
89) is granted, and a separate Amended Order will issue.
Dated this 8th day of September, 2021.

12
13

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2