USA, et al v. Feinstein Family, et al
Filing
298
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 289 Motion for order directing Clerk to enter judgment; denying 295 Motion for Hearing. The Clerk shall enter judgment nunc pro tunc to the August 17, 1999 252 Order. The motion is otherwise denied. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/21/2016. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
ANGLO-AMERICAN
FINANCIAL,
collectively referred to as
the Kennedy Funding Group,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 2:96-cv-232-FtM-29
FEINSTEIN
FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP,
a
Florida
general partnership, BRIAN
FEINSTEIN, individually and
as partners doing business
as
Feinstein
Family
Partnership, MARK FEINSTEIN,
individually and as partners
doing business as Feinstein
Family
Partnership,
ERIC
FEINSTEIN, individually and
as partners doing business
as
Feinstein
Family
Partnership,
DEBORAH
FEINSTEIN
KOROGLU,
individually and as partners
doing business as Feinstein
Family Partnership, COLONIAL
PROPERTIES
IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT, INC., a Florida
corporation,
COLONIAL
PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
MICHAEL
STEVENS,
and
CARLTON,
FIELDS,
WARD,
EMMANUEL,
SMITH & CUTLER, P.A.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for
Order Directing Clerk to Enter Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 (Doc. #289) filed on September 30, 2016.
Defendants filed a response in opposition and request a hearing on
the matter.
The
(Docs. #294; #295.)
United
States
defendants in June 1996.
and
found
the
commenced
this
action
against
the
The Court conducted a trial on the merits
defendants
jointly
and
severally
liable
for
violations of sections 301 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1344.
Defendants were ordered to pay a penalty
of $400,000 to the United States Treasury.
(Doc. #207, p. 28.)
On August 17, 1999, the Court further clarified that final judgment
was granted in favor of the Government and the Clerk was directed
to enter judgment accordingly pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Doc. #252.)
Upon review of the docket
it appears the Clerk did not enter the final judgment as directed
by the Court’s Order.
Plaintiff now seeks an order directing the Clerk to enter
final judgment nunc pro tunc so that it may enforce the judgment
that was rendered in the Court’s August 17, 1999 Order.
- 2 -
Plaintiff
further seeks an order directing defendants to pay the $400,000
penalty immediately.
Defendants agree that the Court should
instruct the Clerk to enter a final judgment but object to the
order applying nunc pro tunc.
The
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
require
“[e]very
judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate
document[.]”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
However, in Bankers Trust
Company v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (1978), the Supreme Court noted
that the purpose of the separate-document requirement was to
clarify when the time for appeal begins.
Id. at 384–85.
“The
need for certainty as to the timeliness of an appeal, however,
should not prevent the parties from waiving the separate-judgment
requirement where one has accidentally not been entered.”
Id. at
386.
Here, the Court clearly evidenced its intent that the August
17, 1999 Order (Doc. #252) represent the final decision in the
case.
Although the Clerk of Court failed to enter final judgment
in a separate document, such error does not render the Court’s
judgment unenforceable.
In addition, neither party has challenged
the enforceability of the Court’s Order in the last seventeen
years.
Therefore, the Court finds under the circumstances of this
case, the parties should be deemed to have waived the separate-
- 3 -
judgment requirement of Rule 58.
Id. at 388; see also Reynolds
v. Golden Corral Corp., 213 F.3d 1344, 1346 (11th Cir. 2000).
Furthermore, the Court finds that the error of the Clerk may
be corrected pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).
Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part
the “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.
Under
this rule, a district court may “correct clerical errors to reflect
what was intended at the time of ruling,” but “errors that affect
substantial rights of the parties . . . are beyond the scope of
rule 60(a).”
(citations
Weeks v. Jones, 100 F.3d 124, 128 (11th Cir. 1996)
omitted).
As
discussed
above,
the
Court
clearly
intended that the August 17, 1999 Order (Doc. #252) serve as the
final decision in this case.
The Court will, therefore, grant
plaintiff’s motion for a nunc pro tunc order.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Directing Clerk to Enter
Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 (Doc. #289)
is GRANTED to the extent set forth herein and otherwise DENIED.
2.
Defendants’ Request for Hearing (Doc. #295) is DENIED.
- 4 -
3.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment
nunc pro tunc.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of December, 2016.
Copies:
Counsel of Record
- 5 -
21st
day
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?