Zivanic v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. et al

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 32 Motion to correct error in prior order (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9

YVONNE ZIVANIC,

10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

12
13
14

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A;
ERIC DIPPEL; LISA DIPPEL; JP
MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.;
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY; et al.,

15
Defendants.
16

) Case No. 10-cv-00737-SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
) CORRECT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18
19

Now before the Court is Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

20

and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's (collectively

21

"Defendants") motion to correct an error in a prior order issued in

22

this case.

23

were due on February 4, 2015, but none have been filed.

24

will therefore treat the motion as unopposed.

25

the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument,

26

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

27
28

ECF No. 32 ("Mot.").

Responses to Defendants' motion
The Court

The Court finds that

On May 26, 2011, the Court granted Defendants' unopposed
motion for return of property in this matter.

See ECF No. 31.

The

Action recorded as Document 20615884 on February 19, 2010 in the

3

office of the Santa Clara County Recorder's office be expunged.

4

Id. at 2.

5

actually Document 20615684.

6

Defendants' motion for return of property, see ECF No. 29 at 6,

7

Defendants' proposed order, see ECF No. 29-1 at 2, and the relevant

8

United States District Court

Court's order included an order that the Notice of Pendency of

2

For the Northern District of California

1

document itself, see ECF No. 29 Ex. 7 at 1.

9

That order was in error; the correct document number is
The correct number is reflected in

The error in the Court's prior order was due to a clerical

10

mistake.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) permits the Court

11

to "correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight

12

or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other

13

part of the record."

14

Defendants provided in support of their motion indicates that the

15

correct document number was indeed 20615684, and that the document

16

itself reflects that number, the Court finds that its prior order

17

referred to Document 20615884 as the result of simple clerical

18

mistake.

Given that every relevant document that

Defendants' motion is GRANTED.

19

The Court ORDERS that the Notice of Pendency of Action

20

recorded as document 20615684 on February 19, 2010 in the Santa

21

Clara County Recorder's Office is hereby expunged.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: March 25, 2015

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

2