Folkmanis, Inc. v. Uptown Toys LLC

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 35 Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Clerical Error. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FOLKMANIS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-00955-EMC

v.
UPTOWN TOYS LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL
ERROR
Docket No. 35

12
13

In September 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and entered a

14

final judgment in favor of Plaintiff. See Docket Nos. 26-27 (order and final judgment). Plaintiff

15

subsequently filed a motion to alter the judgment which the Court denied in December 2018. See

16

Docket No. 33 (order). In March 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to correct the final judgment on the

17

ground that it contains a clerical error. This is the motion currently pending before the Court.

18

As Plaintiff notes, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides that “[t]he court may

19

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

20

a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with

21

or without notice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Plaintiff argues that the final judgment in the instant

22

case has a clerical mistake in that the final judgment – unlike the order granting default judgment

23

– “does not state the dollar amount of the monetary award.” Mot. at 1. In a declaration, Plaintiff’s

24

counsel states that “Plaintiff does not seek any substantive modification of the [final] judgment by

25

this motion” and seeks relief only because, “[i]n order to enforce the Judgment in a foreign

26

jurisdiction (Utah in this case), it is necessary to have a dollar amount[] stated on the face of the

27

judgment.” Brucker Decl. ¶¶ 2, 5.

28

The Court GRANTS the motion to correct and shall forthwith file the proposed corrected

1

judgment filed by Plaintiff. The Court notes that its action here does not extend the time for an

2

appeal. See Hodge v. Hodge, 269 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2001) (stating that “a motion under Rule

3

60(a) does not start anew the time for filing a notice of appeal”).

4

This order disposes of Docket No. 35.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: March 13, 2019

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2