Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01689/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01689-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re NOVATEL WIRELESS 

SECURITIES LITIGATION

_______________________________

This Document Relates to

ALL ACTIONS.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.08cv1689 AJB (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

AMEND THE JUDGMENT DATE

[Doc. No. 525]

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to amend the judgment

entered June 23, 2014. (Doc. No. 525.) Specifically, Defendants request this Court to

amend the date such that judgment is entered as of the date of the final approval hearing, i.e.,

June 20, 2014. Plaintiffs’ oppose . (Doc. No. 527.) As the error committed by the Court is

a clerical mistake within the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), Defendants’

motion is GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND

On Friday June 20, 2014, this Court held a hearing on: (1) the final approval of

Settlement Stipulation; (2) the plan of distribution of the net settlement proceeds in the

action; and (3) award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs. 

1 08cv1689

Case 3:08-cv-01689-AJB-RBB Document 528 Filed 07/08/14 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

Additionally, the Court heard oral arguments on a motion to intervene for purposes of

opposing the final approval of Settlement. After full consideration of all Parties’ respective

position, the Court, during the hearing: (1) granted the motion to intervene; (2) overruled

the objections; and (3) approved the Settlement, plan of distribution of settlement, and

award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Court noted its intent to issue the final written

order memorializing the actionstaken at the hearing later that day. However, judgment was

not entered and filed until one court date later on June 23, 2014. (Doc. Nos. 522; 521; 520;

519.) Defendants now seek an amendment of the final judgment to reflect the date of the

hearing

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), “[c]lerical mistakes in judgments,

orders or other parts of the record and errorstherein arising from oversight or omission may

be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and

after such notice, if any, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(a). In determining

whether a mistake may be corrected under this rule, the Ninth Circuit focuses on what the

court originally intended to do. Tattersalls, Ltd. v. DeHaven, 745 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.

2014) (citing Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1588 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, “[t]he basic

distinction between ‘clerical mistakes' and mistakes that cannot be corrected pursuant to

Rule 60(a) is that the former consist of ‘blunders in execution’ whereas the latter consist of

instances where the court changes its mind.” Blanton, 813 F.2d at n.2. 

B. Analysis 

In the instant case, the Court’s original intention was that judgment would be signed

and entered as of the date of the hearing. Correcting the date to reflect this intention is

within the purview contemplated by Rule 60(a). See Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069,

1079-81 (9th Cir. 2012) (concluding Rule 60(a) “allows a court to clarify a judgment in

order to correct a failure to memorialize part of its decision, to reflect the necessary

implications of the original order, to ensure that the court’s purpose is fully implemented,

2 08cv1689

Case 3:08-cv-01689-AJB-RBB Document 528 Filed 07/08/14 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

or to permit enforcement.”) “The ‘touchstone’ of Rule 60(a) . . . is ‘fidelity to the intent

behind the original judgment.’” Tattersalls, 745 F.3d at 1298 (quoting Garamendi, 683 F.3d

at 1078). This was not an instance in which the Court consciously changed its mind

intending the date of judgment to be one court date after. See id. (“A clerical error . . . is a

blunder in execution that the court may try to correct so long asit does not change its mind.”

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). 

Plaintiffs oppose the motion arguing it does not meet Rule 60's standards and

Defendants in actuality are asking the Court to absolve them of the obligation under the

negotiated settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 527 at 2-4.) The Court disagrees. Indeed, the

1

Court stated, from the bench, its approval of the final Settlement Stipulation, plan of

distribution, and award of attorneys’ fees and costs at the June 20, 2014 hearing. During the

proceedings, Court noted its intent to issue the final written approval orders and judgment

soon thereafter. However, due to the lateness of the proceeding that day and the voluminous

amount of work caused by a heavy calendar, the Court was unable to issue the final orders,

file them, and enter judgment until one court date later on Monday June 23, 2014. Such an

oversight and/or omission constitutes the type of “blunder in execution” contemplated by

the Ninth Circuit for proper resolution under Rule 60(a). Blanton, 813 F.2d at 1577, n.2. 

As such, an amendment of the date of judgment is proper under Rule 60(a) as it would

memorialize the Court’s original intent. 

//

//

//

 The Settlement Stipulation provides: 1

NWI agrees that, with respect to the Settlement Stock, if the price

of the common stock of NWI is trading below $2.077 per share on the

date the Court enters the Judgment, NWI shall, within thirty (30) days

thereof, contribute to the Settlement Fund the cash amount representing

the difference between $2.077 per share and the average closing price of

NWI stock for the 15 trading days prior to the date the Court enters the

Judgment multiplied by 2,407,318.

3 08cv1689

Case 3:08-cv-01689-AJB-RBB Document 528 Filed 07/08/14 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

//

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to amend pursuant to Rule 60(a) is

GRANTED. The judgment in this action is deemed entered on June 20, 2014. The Clerk

of Court is instructed to amend the docket filing date accordingly. 

DATED: July 8, 2014

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

4 08cv1689

Case 3:08-cv-01689-AJB-RBB Document 528 Filed 07/08/14 Page 4 of 4