Congregation Jeshuat Israel v. Congregation Shearith Israel

Filing 139

ORDER granting 136 Motion to Alter Judgment and vacating 6/18/18 judgment- So Ordered by District Judge Landya B McCafferty on 3/5/2019 (Barletta, Barbara)

Case 1:12-cv-00822-LM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 03/05/19 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 6622

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

Congregation Jeshuat Israel
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-00822-LM-AKJ

Congregation Shearith Israel

O R D E R
This case involves the parties’ dispute about ownership
rights in real and personal property associated with the Touro
Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island.

The Rhode Island District

Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff.

On appeal, the

First Circuit reversed, ruled in favor of defendant, and
remanded for entry of judgment consistent with its opinion.

See

Congregation Jeshuat Israel v. Congregation Shearith Israel, 866
F.3d 53, 62 (1st Cir. 2017).

Before the court is defendant

Congregation Shearith Israel’s (“CSI”), motion for proper entry
of judgment.

Doc. no. 136.

Israel (“CJI”) objects.

Plaintiff, Congregation Jeshuat

For the following reasons, the court

grants CSI’s motion.

BACKGROUND
CJI and CSI are both Jewish congregations.

A dispute arose

between the two congregations about the ownership of the Touro

Case 1:12-cv-00822-LM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 03/05/19 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 6623

Synagogue and a pair of rimonin used for worship at the
Synagogue.1

In 2012, CJI filed suit against CSI seeking a

declaratory judgment that CJI is the lawful owner of the
rimonim.

Congregation Jeshuat Israel, 866 F.3d at 56.

CSI

counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had full
legal and equitable rights to the rimonim and to the Touro
Synagogue and its lands.

Id.

After a nine-day bench trial, the

Rhode Island District Court ruled in favor of CJI and entered
judgment in favor of CJI and against CSI on May 16, 2016.

Doc.

nos. 118, 119.
On appeal, the First Circuit reversed the district court
and ruled in favor of CSI.
F.3d at 61-62.

Congregation Jeshuat Israel, 866

The First Circuit found that “the only

reasonable conclusions about property, title, ownership, and
control that can be drawn from” the record are that:
(a)

CSI is fee owner of the Touro Synagogue building,
appurtenances, fixtures, and associated land as
described in the 1903 lease;

(b)

likewise CSI is owner of the rimonim in issue
here;

(c)

in each case CSI’s ownership is free of any trust
or other obligation to CJI except as lessor to
CJI as holdover lessee; [and]

1

The rimonim at issue here are “a pair of finials with
attached bells made of silver and gold and designed to surmount
the shafts around which the Torah scrolls were rolled.”
Congregation Jeshuat Israel, 866 F.3d at 55.
2

Case 1:12-cv-00822-LM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 03/05/19 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 6624

(d)

CJI’s interest in the Synagogue building and
related real property mentioned above is solely
that of holdover lessee.

Id. at 61-62 (footnote omitted).

The First Circuit held: “We

accordingly reverse the judgment of the district court and
remand the case for entry of judgment consistent with the
conclusions set out above.”

Id. at 62 (emphasis omitted).

It

further noted that this judgment should be “without prejudice to
CSI to bring claims raised by it but not resolved here in a new
action.”

Id.

And, that CSI’s request for attorney’s fees and

costs should be resolved on remand by the district court.

Id.

CJI then filed a petition for rehearing and for rehearing en
banc, both of which were denied.

See Congregation Jeshuat

Israel v. Congregation Shearith Israel, 892 F.3d 20 (1st Cir.
2018).
On remand, the Rhode Island District Court clerk entered
judgment on June 18, 2018 as follows: “Upon remand of this
matter from the United State’s [sic] Court of Appeals and
pursuant to the Opinion entered on August 3, 2017, the Judgment
of this Court entered on May 16, 2016 is hereby reversed.”
no. 128.

Doc.

The case was then transferred from the Rhode Island

District Court to this court (doc. no. 130), and CSI filed the
instant motion.

3

Case 1:12-cv-00822-LM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 03/05/19 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 6625

DISCUSSION
CSI takes issue with the text of the June 18, 2018 judgment
entered by the Rhode Island District Court clerk after remand
from the First Circuit.

Specifically, CSI asks this court to

enter a “proper judgment” in place of that June 18, 2018
judgment.

It requests that the replacement judgment conform

with the First Circuit’s remand order by: (1) expressly entering
judgment in favor of CSI and against CJI; (2) stating that the
district court’s prior order is vacated and reversed; (3)
listing the four specific conclusions made by the First Circuit
as to the parties’ respective legal rights; and (4) noting that
the judgment is without prejudice to CSI’s ability to bring
claims raised but not resolved by the appeal, and its request
for attorney’s fees and costs.

See doc. no. 136-2 (proposed

amended judgment).
The court agrees that the June 2018 judgment should be
clarified.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a),

this 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.”

The court may do so by

motion of the parties or “on its own, with or without notice.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).

A motion under Rule 60(a) “is
4

Case 1:12-cv-00822-LM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 03/05/19 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 6626

appropriate where the the judgment failed to reflect the court’s
intention.”

Bowen Inv., Inc. v. Carneiro Donuts, Inc., 490 F.3d

27, 29 (1st Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Said

differently, Rule 60(a) “is properly employed where the
intention to include a particular provision in the judgment was
clear, but the judge neglected to include the provision.”

Id.

(quoting 11 Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc., § 2854 (2d ed.
1995)).

This is precisely CSI’s contention: it asserts that the

First Circuit intended that the information identified by CSI be
included in the entry of judgment on remand, but that the
information was omitted.

See id. at 29 (observing that

plaintiff correctly brought motion under Rule 60(a) where it
asserted that defendant had mistakenly been omitted as a
responsible party on a particular claim).2
The language of the First Circuit’s opinion, quoted in
relevant part above, makes the Circuit’s intentions clear.

2

The

The court notes that CSI invoked Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58, not Rule 60(a), in support of its motion.
However, the First Circuit has acknowledged that a
“recharacterization” of a party’s argument under another more
suitable rule is permissible. Ira Green, Inc. v. Military Sales
& Serv. Co., 775 F.3d 12, 27 n.8 (1st Cir. 2014) (“[A] district
court is not bound by the label that a party affixes to a motion
but ordinarily may recharacterize the motion as invoking a more
appropriate rule.”).

5

Case 1:12-cv-00822-LM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 03/05/19 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6627

Circuit expressly intended that: (1) the district court’s
judgment be reversed; (2) the case be remanded for entry of
judgment for CSI and against CJI; (3) the judgment entered on
remand be consistent with the four specific conclusions about
the parties’ legal rights to the Synagogue and rimonim that the
Court enumerated in the opinion; and (4) the judgment entered on
remand was without prejudice to CSI’s ability to later bring
claims not resolved by the opinion, and its ability to seek
attorney’s fees and costs before the district court.
Congregation Jeshuat Israel, 866 F.3d at 61-62.

See

Replacing the

June 18, 2018 judgment with CSI’s proposed judgment (doc. no.
136-2) is appropriate under Rule 60(a); CSI’s proposed judgment
modifies the language to reflect the First Circuit’s intentions.
See Bowen, 490 F.3d at 29.

Clarifying the judgment is

consistent with this court’s duty to “comply strictly with the
mandate rendered by the reviewing court.”

Colorado Interstate

Gas Co. v. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 962 F.2d 1528, 1534
(10th Cir. 1992).

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, CSI’s motion (doc. no. 136) is
granted.

The June 18, 2018 judgment (doc. no. 128) is vacated.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a), the court
6

Case 1:12-cv-00822-LM-AKJ Document 139 Filed 03/05/19 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 6628

orders the clerk of this court to enter judgment in a separate
document consistent with the proposed amended judgment filed by
CSI at document number 136-2.

SO ORDERED.

______________________
_______ _
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
ya McCafferty
cC ff rt
United States District Judge
ed States District Judg
e D
Sitting by Designation
ing
Designation
es

March 5, 2019
cc:

Counsel of Record

7