Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00249/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00249-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dible, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of Chandler, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-249-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Correct the Record. Defendants

file this motion pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court

now rules on the motion.

On July 8, 2005, this Court sanctioned Plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order read:

[T]he Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel as follows: Plaintiffs’

counsel must pay all attorneys’ fees and costs that Defendants incurred as a

result of Plaintiffs’ two supplements to their Motion for New Trial and their

Motions for Order to Show Cause and for Rule 11 Sanctions, including the

attorneys’ fees and costs that Defendants incurred by filing this Motion for

Rule 11 Sanctions.

Doc. # 128 at 14 (emphasis added). On February 13, 2006, the Court ruled on the amount

of the sanctions, finding that the attorneys’ fees and costs that Defendants incurred as a result

of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s sanctionable conduct amounted to $10,904.22. Instead of instructing

the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in this amount against Plaintiffs’ counsel, however,

Case 2:03-cv-00249-JAT Document 184 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 On this basis, Plaintiffs moved to strike Defendants’ motion, which the Court will

now deny as moot.

- 2 -

the Court mistakenly lumped these sanctions into an award against “Plaintiffs.” Doc. # 167

at 2.

The Court was unaware of this error until, during the pendency of the subsequent

appeal, Defendants filed the above-mentioned motion to correct the record in this Court. The

Court could not immediately correct its mistake, however, because the Court did not have

jurisdiction to entertain such a motion while the appeal was pending.1

 See Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(a) (“[A]fter an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending,

such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court’s leave.”). The Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals has since reversed the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiffs because

“Rule 11 does not provide for the imposition of sanctions upon the clients for the sins of their

attorney,” Doc. # 180 at 2, and has issued the mandate in this case. As a result, the Court

now has jurisdiction to address Defendants’ motion. Id.; see also Standard Oil Co. v. United

States, 429 U.S. 17 (1976).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides that a district court “may correct a

clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a

judgment, order, or other part of the record.” In opposing Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs

argue that the error Defendants seek to correct under Rule 60(a) is the kind of error that can

only be corrected under Rule 60(b). There is no merit to this argument.

The 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, either because it made a legal or factual mistake in making its original

determination, or because on second thought it has decided to exercise its

discretion in a manner different from the way it was exercised in the original

determination.

Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987). The focus is “on what the

court originally intended to do.” Id. at 1577. Here, the record clearly reflects that the Court

originally intended to sanction Plaintiffs’ counsel, rather than Plaintiffs, in the amount of

Case 2:03-cv-00249-JAT Document 184 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

$10,904.22. In its July 8, 2005 order, the Court awarded Rule 11 sanctions against

“Plaintiffs’ counsel.” Doc. # 128 at 14. In its February 13, 2006 order, the Court determined

the amount of the sanctions — $10,904.22 — but mistakenly lumped this amount into an

award against Plaintiffs. Doc. # 167 at 2. This was a blunder in execution, nothing more.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Correct the Record (Doc. # 175) is

GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall vacate the judgment entered at Doc. # 168 and

shall enter an amended judgment as follows:

(1) Judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,386.09;

and

(2) Judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs’ counsel in the amount of

$10,904.22;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Doc. # 176) is

DENIED as moot.

DATED this 28th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:03-cv-00249-JAT Document 184 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 3