Martinez v. County of Tulare et al
ORDER Correcting Clerical Error and Reopening Case to Resolve Maria Eva Martinez's Claims Against the County of San Diego signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/29/2017. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIA EVA MARTINEZ,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, and DOES 1-100,
ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL ERROR
AND REOPENING CASE TO RESOLVE
MARIA EVA MARTINEZ’S CLAIMS
AGAINST THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
(Doc. No. 26)
On January 18, 2017, the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff Maria Eva Martinez
and against defendant County of Tulare according to the terms of an offer and notice of judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68(a). (Doc. No. 23.) That order, however,
erroneously vacated all future dates and hearings in the matter and directed the Clerk of the Court
to close the case. (Id.) This aspect of the order was obviously issued by the court in error since
plaintiff Martinez’s claims against defendant County of San Diego remain unresolved and were
not addressed in the offer of judgment which was the subject of the court’s January 18, 2017
order. On January 25, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to correct the court’s clerical mistake. (Doc.
No. 26.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides that a “court may correct a clerical
mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment,
order, or other part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). “The court may do so on motion or on
its own, with or without notice.” (Id.) Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion and
correct the clerical error reflected in its January 18, 2017 order.
Based upon the foregoing,
1) Plaintiff Maria Eva Martinez’s motion to correct a clerical mistake in the court’s
January 18, 2017 order (Doc. No. 26) is granted.
2) The Clerk of the Court is directed to reopen the case with regard to plaintiff’s claims
brought against the defendant County of San Diego;
3) The March 7, 2017 hearing on plaintiff’s motion to correct a clerical mistake (Doc.
No. 26) is hereby vacated; and
4) The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for amendment of the
scheduling order, if necessary.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 29, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Counsel for plaintiff has advised that when the court on January 18, 2017, erroneously vacated
all pending dates and directed the Clerk of the Court to close the case even though it was apparent
that judgment was being entered only against defendant County of Tulare and that plaintiff’s
claims against defendant San Diego County were still pending, that counsel for the latter
defendant cancelled plaintiff’s scheduled deposition and indicated that no responses to pending
discovery requests would be provided in light of the court’s order. (Doc. No. 26 at 3.) If that is
the case, the undersigned is disappointed. The aspect of the order vacating pending dates was
obviously entered in error and was certain to be corrected. Counsel clearly should have continued
to move forward with discovery. If the current discovery cut-off and other dates are no longer
viable, the parties are directed within two weeks of the service of this order to submit a proposed
stipulation and order modifying those dates for the assigned magistrate judge’s consideration. If a
stipulation cannot be reached requiring the filing of a motion to modify the scheduling order,
counsel are forewarned that sanctions may be imposed against any party who is not proceeding
with discovery in good faith.
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?