Knight Brothers v. Barer Engineering Company of America et al
Filing
88
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 86 Motion to Amend/Correct Judgment. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 12/21/2012. (asp)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
KNIGHT BROTHERS LLC, a Utah limited
liability company, dba INTERMOUNTAIN
RIGGING AND HEAVY HAUL,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
AMEND JUDGMENT
v.
BARER ENGINEERING COMPANY OF
AMERICA, a Vermont Corporation,
CENTRAL BEARING CORPORATION
LTD, dba BARER ENGINEERING
COMPANY OF AMERICA, CENTRAL
BEARING CORPORATION LTD, dba
BARER ENGINEERING
INTERNATIONAL, and DAVID BARER, an
individual,
Case No. 2:10-CV-108 TS
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Knight Brothers LLC’s—dba Intermountain
Rigging and Heavy Haul—Motion to Amend Judgment.1 Through its Motion, Plaintiff requests
that the Court amend its judgment to clarify that each of the Defendants in this case are joint and
severally liable.
1
Docket No. 86.
1
On August 22, 2012, this Court entered its Memorandum Decision and Order granting
Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Default Judgment (the “Memorandum Decision”).2 Pursuant to
the Memorandum Decision, the Court granted Plaintiff default judgment and specifically found
that such judgment should apply to all Defendants as provided under Frow v. De La Vega.3
Nevertheless, the Court’s Judgment, entered on August 29, 2012, failed to provide for joint and
several liability between the Defendants.4
Plaintiff moves the Court to amend its Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59. However, in light of the timing of Plaintiff’s Motion and the nature of the relief sought, the
Court finds Rule 60(a) to be the more appropriate vehicle to address Plaintiff’s request. Pursuant
to Rule 60(a), the Court, on motion or on its own, “may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake
arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment.”
A district court is not limited under Rule 60(a) to the correction of clerical
mistakes arising from oversight or omission. Rather, a district court may also
invoke Rule 60(a) to resolve an ambiguity in its original order to more clearly
reflect its contemporaneous intent and ensure that the court’s purpose is fully
implemented.5
Here, it was the Court’s intent that the Defendants be jointly and severally liable for the
award granted in the Judgment. However, the Judgment is ambiguous on this point. The Court
2
Docket No. 84.
3
See 15 Wall. 552, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872); see also Docket No. 46, at 3–4 (providing
that judgment would not be entered until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all
Defendants because Defendants are alleged to be joint and severally liable).
4
See Docket No. 85.
5
Burton v. Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 694 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1043
(1993) (citing Pan. Processes, S.A. v. Cities Serv. Co., 789 F.2d 991, 993 (2d Cir. 1986);
McNickle v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 888 F.2d 678, 682 (10th Cir. 1989)).
2
will therefore grant Plaintiff’s Motion and amend its Judgment to reflect that each of the
Defendants is, in fact, jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the award granted.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment (Docket No. 86) is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court is instructed to amend the Judgment in this case to reflect that Defendants are
jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the judgment entered.
DATED December 21, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
3
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?