DeMartini et al v. Johns et al

Filing 114

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 107 Motion to Amend/Correct and vacating August 25, 2017 hearing ; THE PARTIES SHALL PROVIDE TO THE COURT A JOINT PROPOSED JUDGMENT THAT THE PARTIES AGREE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF THEIR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THIS CASE NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 1, 2017. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
MICHAEL JAY DEMARTINI, et al.,

7

Case No. 12-cv-03929-JCS

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CORRECT DOCKET

9
THOMAS CHRISTOPHER JOHNS, et al.,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 107

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Defendants Johns and Johns & Allyn bring a Motion to Correct the Docket and Dismiss

13
14

the Action With Prejudice (“Motion”). Defendants contend a docket entry for an Order of the

15

Ninth Circuit that was filed in this case (Docket No. 106) is confusing and incorrect to the extent it

16

appears to reflect that the underlying document is the mandate of the Ninth Circuit (which the

17

parties agree it is not). Therefore, Defendants assert, the Court should remove the document and

18

corresponding docket entry from the docket of this case. The Court DENIES the Motion, which

19

has no merit, and vacates the hearing set for August 25, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.1

20

On December 29, 2015, the undersigned entered an amended judgment in favor of

21

Plaintiffs in this action. Defendants appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit, which assigned

22

the appeal Case No. 16-15134. On June 7, 2017, the Ninth Circuit filed a “Memorandum” (“the

23

June 7 Memorandum”) in that case and provided this Court with a copy of the June 7

24

Memorandum. As is the Court’s regular practice as to all Orders filed by the Ninth Circuit in this

25

Court’s cases that are on appeal, the Clerk filed the June 7 Memorandum in this case. See Docket

26
27
1

28

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).

1

No. 106.2
The Clerk’s filing of the Ninth Circuit’s Order in this case has no legal significance; it

2
3

simply reflects action taken by the Ninth Circuit on the appeal. Further, the docket entry for the

4

June 7 Memorandum accurately reflects the nature of that document, describing it as “USCA

5

Memorandum as to 71 Notice of Appeal.” The docket entry does not describe the Memorandum

6

as a “Mandate.” Therefore, there is nothing incorrect in this Court’s docket that requires

7

correction. The Court also notes that when the Ninth Circuit did issue its mandate, that document

8

was provided to this Court as well and it was duly filed as Docket No. 109 (“USCA ORDER AND

9

MANDATE”). Contrary to the speculation of Defendants, the Clerk filed the “Order and
Mandate” not because it “recognized [its] mistake,” see Reply at 4, but because it is the Court’s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

practice to file all Orders it receives from the Ninth Circuit in cases pending on appeal, as noted

12

above.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion. The parties shall provide to the

13
14

Court a Joint Proposed Judgment that the parties agree is consistent with the terms of their

15

settlement agreement in this case no later than September 1, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: August 9, 2017
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
2

27
28

Similarly, the Court filed the previous Orders of the Ninth Circuit in this case. See Docket Nos.
101 (failure to pay filing fee by appellant), 104 (instructing parties they should be prepared to
discuss American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Service, 682 F.2d 1280 (9th
Cir.1982) at oral argument) and 105 (denying request to file supplemental briefs).
2