Case ID: f-appx_704/html/0716-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael MORENO, an individual; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROSS ISLAND SAND & GRAVEL, COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-16324
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 17, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed November 30, 2017
    
      Craig Benjamin Pry, Lang, Richert & Patch, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees
    Gregory Foster Dyer, Esquire, Litigation Counsel, Jones & Dyer, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: CLIFTON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Defendant Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co. appeals the district court’s Rule 60(a) order clarifying a judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). We affirm.

It was appropriate for the district court to issue the order under Rule 60(a). As the Judgment was not appealed, the only issue before us is whether the clarifying order was consistent or inconsistent with the intent behind the original judgment. The district court’s clarification was consistent with the contemporaneous intent of its original judgment. The district court had previously expressed its intent to apply principles of federal maritime law, including joint and several liability. See McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202, 220, 114 S.Ct. 1461, 128 L.Ed.2d 148 (1994) (explaining that joint and several liability is a “well-established principle” in admiralty actions). Therefore, the order was not an abuse of discretion. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077-81 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that Rule 60(a) allows for “clarifications” that do “not change the operative, substantive terms of the original judgment”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.