Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05162/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID J. NELSON,

Plaintiff, No. C 09-5162 PJH

v. ORDER RE MOTION FOR

MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT;

ROBERT DAVID NEAL, REFERRAL OF POST JUDGMENT

MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendant.

_______________________________/

The court is in receipt of an “emergency motion for modification of [judgment]” in the

instant action, filed by an individual, John Wall, who has been designated an “interested

party” in the docket caption, but who calls himself both the substituted plaintiff and a

representative of plaintiff. The motion seeks to modify the judgment entered by the clerk of

the court on January 26, 2010, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 68,

and further requests that the court “order the clerk of the court” to issue a writ of execution

in connection with such modified judgment.

The court has reviewed both the offer of judgment and acceptance of offer and

agrees with Mr. Wall that the clerk’s judgment is deficient as it does not adequately set

forth the terms of the offer and acceptance. Accordingly, the court, sua sponte and

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), enters by separate order an amended judgment reflecting

the agreed upon terms.

It is not entirely clear, however, whether Mr. Wall is requesting that his name appear

on the amended judgment. He refers to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25, but has not, as required by that

rule, filed a motion to be substituted in place of the original plaintiff. Thus, his “Notice of

Substitution” is ineffectual for this purpose and the amended judgment remains in the

Case 4:09-cv-05162-PJH Document 17 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

names of the original parties who entered the offer and acceptance of judgment in the first

place.

In another filing, docket #14, Mr. Wall applies for a writ of execution of the judgment

(and presumably the amended judgment). It is not clear to the court that given his nonparty status, Mr. Wall may obtain such a writ. This question as well as resolution of the

application is hereby REFERRED for assignment of a magistrate judge forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-05162-PJH Document 17 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 2