Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02024/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02024-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Liberty Life Insurance Company,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Eric LungMyers, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 10-02024-PHX-JAT 

ORDER

 Pending before the Court is defendant Estate of Donald D. Myers’ Motion (Doc. 

297) to Amend or Clarify Judgment (Doc. 294) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59(e). Also pending is defendants Erin Stoloff and Kirsten Ruggiano’s 

substantially similar Motion (Doc. 298) to Amend or Clarify Judgment (Doc. 294) 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Plaintiff has filed a Response opposing 

both motions (Doc. 302) as unnecessary, and defendants Stoloff and Ruggiano have filed 

a Reply (Doc. 303). For the following reasons, the Court denies the defendants’ motions 

to amend or clarify the Judgment. 

 On February 12, 2013, the Court entered an Order resolving Plaintiff’s motion for 

partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and directing the parties to notify the Court 

of what claims, if any, remained for trial. (Doc. 280). Plaintiff subsequently dismissed all 

remaining claims against the various defendants. (Doc. 283). After carefully considering 

Plaintiff’s Proposed Form of Judgment (Doc. 282) and the various defendants’ Objections 

(Docs. 284–85, 88), on September 17, 2013, the Court entered the following Judgment, in 

relevant part: 

Case 2:10-cv-02024-JAT Document 308 Filed 04/15/14 Page 1 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 2 -

IT IS ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and 

against Defendant Eric LungMyers (a/k/a Eric L. Myers, Eric Lung-Myers) 

on Plaintiff’s fraud claim, against Defendant Erin Sarah Stoloff (f/k/a Erin 

Sarah Myers) on Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim, against Defendant 

Kirsten Anne Ruggiano (f/k/a Kirsten Anne Myers) on Plaintiff’s unjust 

enrichment claim, and against Defendant the Estate of Donald D. Myers, by 

and through Personal Representatives Brooke M. Wilson and Heather M. 

Craig (the “Estate of Donald D. Myers”) on Plaintiff’s conversion claim, in 

the amount of $870,103.80, jointly and severally, plus post-judgment 

interest at 0.13%, until Judgment is paid in full. 

 However, the amount recoverable from Defendant Erin Sarah Stoloff 

is capped at $178,031.00; the amount recoverable from Defendant Kirsten 

Anne Ruggiano is capped at $300,620.00; and the amount recoverable from 

the Estate of Donald D. Myers is capped at $478,651.00 and is reduced from 

$478,651.00 by any amounts recovered from Defendant Erin Sarah Stoloff 

and Defendant Kirsten Anne Ruggiano. 

 Further, the amount recoverable from Defendant Eric LungMyers is 

reduced by any amounts received from Defendants Erin Sarah Stoloff, 

Kirsten Anne Ruggiano, and the Estate of Donald D. Myers. Additionally, 

any amounts received from Defendant Eric LungMyers in excess of 

$391,452.80 shall reduce, pro rata, the amounts recoverable from 

Defendants Erin Sarah Stoloff and Kirsten Anne Ruggiano; which shall 

resultantly reduce the amount recoverable from the Estate of Donald D. 

Myers. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing with prejudice all remaining 

claims against all defendants other than those listed in this Judgment. 

(Doc. 294 at 1–2). 

 On October 14 and 15, 2013, the defendants timely1

 filed their motions to amend or 

clarify the Judgment (Docs. 297–98). The crux of both motions to amend or clarify the 

Judgment is that because the summary of the Judgment that accompanies the CM/ECF 

docket entry contains only the first paragraph of the Judgment (see Docket Entry no. 294), 

the “judgment” against each defendant mistakenly appears as $870,103.80 and not the 

lesser amounts specified in the Court’s actual Judgment (Doc. 294). (Doc. 297 at 3 (“The 

judgment against [the Estate of Donald D. Myers] is shown as $870,103.80, not 

$478,651.00 as should have been stated in the Judgment.”); Doc. 298 at 5 (“[Stoloff and 

 1

 Any motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) must “be filed 

no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

Case 2:10-cv-02024-JAT Document 308 Filed 04/15/14 Page 2 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 3 -

Ruggiano] should not be identified as being held liable for any more than $178,031.00 and 

$300,620.00 respectively, as [Plaintiff] requested and as this Court recognized.” (internal 

citations omitted))). 

 The defendants appear to conflate the Clerk of the Court’s CM/ECF docket 

summary, which engenders no legal effect, with the actual, legally significant, signed 

Judgment of the Court attached to the docket entry as Doc. 294. The Court reminds the 

defendants that the Court’s actual signed Judgment is the Judgment in this case, not the 

Clerk of the Court’s unsigned and incomplete summary of the Court’s Judgment. 

 The Court has reviewed the text of its Judgment (Doc. 294) and finds that the 

second paragraph (quoted above) accurately and clearly establishes the maximum liability 

of the Estate of Donald D. Myers, Stoloff, and Ruggiano as $478,651.00, $178,031.00, 

and $300,620.00, respectively. Moreover, the Court finds that its Judgment clearly 

identifies how one defendant’s payment to Plaintiff will reduce the liability of the other 

defendants. Consequently, the Court finds that its Judgment need not be amended to 

further clarify the respective liabilities of the various defendants. 

 Additionally, defendants the Estate of Donald D. Meyer’s, Stoloff, and Ruggiano 

appear to be concerned that Plaintiff may attempt to enforce the Judgment against each 

defendant in the full amount of $870,103.80, jointly and severally, instead of the actual, 

lesser amounts adjudicated by the Court. (See Doc. 297 at 2 (“if the judgment as it stands 

is recorded, the amount of the judgment lien may be listed on that record at that greater 

amount”); Doc. 298 at 2 (vaguely alleging that “manifest injustice” may occur if the 

Judgment is not amended). The Court notes that, in light of the plain language of the 

Court’s Judgment (Doc. 294), any attempt by Plaintiff to enforce an award greater than 

the caps specified by the Court would require Plaintiff to materially misrepresent the 

Court’s Judgment in bad faith. The defendants present neither allegations nor evidence 

that Plaintiff has or intends to so act. Nonetheless, to avoid any potential 

misrepresentation by Plaintiff (or misunderstanding by a third-party) that the incomplete 

Docket Summary could possibly engender, the Court will order the Clerk of the Court to 

remove the incomplete Docket Entry Summary at Docket no. 294. 

Case 2:10-cv-02024-JAT Document 308 Filed 04/15/14 Page 3 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 4 -

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that defendants Estate of Donald D. Myers, Erin Stoloff and 

Kirsten Ruggiano’s Motions to Amend or Clarify Judgment (Docs. 297–98) are DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall replace the 

CM/ECF Docket Entry Summary for the Judgment, Docket no. 294, with “Judgment (see 

attached Judgment).” The Court’s actual signed Judgment, entered as Doc. 294, shall not 

be deleted, amended, or modified. 

 Dated this 15th day of April, 2014. 

Case 2:10-cv-02024-JAT Document 308 Filed 04/15/14 Page 4 of 4