Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_97-cv-20099/USCOURTS-cand-5_97-cv-20099-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES

1

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALISAL WATER CORP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:97-cv-20099-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL 

MISTAKES

Re: Dkt. No. 1000

I. INTRODUCTION

Interested party Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District (“PSMCSD”) is 

presently before the court seeking an order correcting a “clerical mistake” pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).1 PSMCSD asks the court to revise a March 4, 2008 order by Judge 

Fogel approving the Bill of Sale effecting the transfer of certain water systems to PSMCSD. More 

specifically, PSMCSD asks the court to revise the order so that it identifies two parcels included in 

the Bill of Sale with sufficient detail to be acceptable to the Monterey County Office of the 

Assessor (“Assessor’s Office”) for secured tax roll purposes. Dkt. No. 1000 (PSMCSD’s Motion 

For Order Correcting Clerical Mistakes Or Mistakes Arising From Oversight Or Omission In 

Order Approving Original Bill of Sale [Fed. R. Civ. P. 609a)] (hereinafter “Motion”)). Defendant 

Alisal Water Corporation (“Alco”) and AWC Holdings Trusts oppose the motion.2 The County of 

Monterey filed a statement of non-opposition. For the reasons discussed below, PSMCSD’s 

 

1 PSMCSD’s accompanying request for judicial notice filed in support of its motion, which is 

unopposed, is granted.

2

 Alco’s request for judicial notice, which is unopposed, is also granted.

Case 5:97-cv-20099-EJD Document 1009 Filed 06/25/19 Page 1 of 11
Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES

2

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

Northern District of California

motion will be granted.

II. BACKGROUND

At the request of the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Attorney 

General initiated this suit over a decade ago in 1997 against Alco, its president and sole 

shareholder, Robert T. Adcock (“Adcock”), and others (collectively “Defendants”) for violating 

the Safe Drinking Water Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. Judge Fogel found that 

Defendants failed to meet the Maximum Contaminant Level (“MCL”) for microbiological 

contaminants; failed to report or give public notice of the MCL failures; failed to do required 

repeat and increased routine monitoring; failed to report the lack of monitoring; failed to retain 

documents as required; and failed to test for lead and copper in their water in a timely manner. 

Dkt. Nos. 143 (Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motions For Partial Summary Judgment), 248 (Order 

Granting In Part And Denying In Part Plaintiff’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment; And 

Denying Defendants’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment). Many of the violations found by 

the court involved intentional false reporting or non-reporting. Dkt. No. 301 (Findings Of Fact 

And Conclusions Of Law). The court conducted a bench trial for the purpose of determining an 

appropriate remedy for the violations, and ordered, among other things, that a receivership be 

created to take control of the eight water systems operated by Defendants and that the Receiver

assess the feasibility of selling seven of the eight water systems. Included among the water 

systems placed into receivership were those owned by Moss Landing Water System, Inc. (“Moss 

Landing”) and North Monterey County Water Systems, Inc. (“NORMCO”). Dkt. No. 301

(Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law). After Moss Landing and NORMCO were placed in 

receivership, PSMCSD began management of the water systems and has continued to do so ever 

since. Dkt. No. 1000-1 (Decl. of Don Rosa in Support of Motion). 

On April 13, 2004, the court directed the court-appointed Receiver to sell the Moss 

Landing and NORMCO water systems (and others) to PSMCSD. Dkt. No. 481-1 (Order 

Regarding Sale Of Receivership Assets). In January of 2008, PSMCSD submitted to the court an 

application for approval of a Bill of Sale for five water systems, including Moss Landing and 

Case 5:97-cv-20099-EJD Document 1009 Filed 06/25/19 Page 2 of 11
Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

NORMCO. Dkt. No. 802-2 (Bill Of Sale). Voluminous Condition of Title reports from the 

Chicago Title Insurance Company were attached to and incorporated by reference into the Bill of 

Sale. Dkt. No. 802-2 at 1. Among the Condition of Title reports was one for NORMCO parcel 

APN 125-151-006—one of the two parcels at issue. Dkt. No 802-12 at 25-31. The Condition of 

Title report for the other parcel at issue, Moss Landing parcel APN 131-061-008, was 

inadvertently omitted. The NORMCO and Moss Landing parcels are connected via pipes to the 

NORMCO and Moss Landing water systems, respectively. Dkt. 100-1 at 3 (Decl. of Don Rosa in 

Support of Motion). The only purpose and only use of the two parcels are to serve customers of 

the two water systems. Id. 

On March 4, 2008, Judge Fogel issued an Order Resolving Pending Issues Re Receivership 

(“March 4, 2008 Order”) which included the following provisions relevant to the instant motion:

1) Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District (“PSMCSD”) 

seeks final Court approval of the Bill of Sale for five small water 

systems in North Monterey County, termination of the existing 

Management Agreements, and release of all claims. Pursuant to 

this Court’s Order dated April 13, 2004, PSMCSD was 

designated as the purchaser of the assets of the Moss Landing 

Water System, Inc., North Monterey County Water System, Inc. 

(“NORMCO”), Blackie Road Mutual Water System #18, Vierra 

Canyon Water System, and Langley/Valle Pacifico Water. 

System. On or about January 12, 2005, PSMCSD entered into 

“Operational and Management Agreements” with the Receiver 

for the five systems. In June, 2007, at the Court’s direction, 

PSMCSD engaged the Chicago Title Company to complete title 

research and production of title documents, easement 

descriptions, and maps and the Bill of Sale to complete the 

transfer of the five systems. The Court hereby authorizes and 

confirms the sale of the five systems to PSMCSD and directs the 

Receiver to execute and deliver the Bill of Sale that has been 

presented to the Court.

* * *

11) The Receivership shall remain in effect with respect to the 

San Jerardo water system only. . . .

Dkt. No. 824. PSMCSD submitted the Bill of Sale to the Monterey County Recorder’s Office 

(“Recorder’s Office”) on April 11, 2008. Dkt. No. 825. The Recorder’s Office, however, did not 

Case 5:97-cv-20099-EJD Document 1009 Filed 06/25/19 Page 3 of 11
Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

record the transfer of Moss Landing parcel APN 131-061-008 from Alco to PSMCSD presumably 

because the Condition of Title report for that particular parcel had been inadvertently omitted from 

the Bill of Sale. Dkt. No. 100 at 4 (PSMCSD’s Motion). The Recorder’s Office also did not 

record the transfer of NORMCO parcel APN 125-151-006 even though the Condition of Title 

report for this parcel was attached to the Bill of Sale. Id. (citing Dkt. No. 802-12). The transfer of 

the NORMCO parcel was not recorded because the Bill of Sale did not include a “metes-andbounds” description for that parcel. Dkt. No. 1005 at 4 (Opp’n of Alisal Water Corporation And 

The AWC Holdings Trusts To Motion); see also Dkt. No. 1008 at 6 (PSMCSD’s Reply). 

Even though Judge Fogel, the Receiver, Alco, and PSMCSD all understood that the Moss 

Landing and NORMCO water systems were to be sold and transferred to PSMCSD and the Bill of 

Sale had been recorded, the Assessor’s Office continued sending tax notices and demands for 

payment to Alco for the two parcels at issue. Dkt. No. 1006 at 3. The tax bills were dated 

November 19, 2008, October 15, 2009, June 22, 2010, November 23, 2010, August 10, 2011, 

February 15, 2011 and February 16, 2011. Id. Alco forwarded these tax notices to PSMCSD and 

asked PSMCSD to pay the bills and to take the necessary action to change ownership of the two 

parcels to PSMCSD. Id. at 6-64. Alco copied the Monterey County Treasurer-Tax Collector on 

all but one of the letters to PSMCSD. Id. 

On February 23, 2009, the Assessor’s Office sent PSMCSD a letter explaining that the 

two parcels at issue “do not appear to be described” in the recorded Bill of Sale, and therefore the 

Assessor’s Office “cannot change the ownership until a document describing the subject properties 

is recorded.” Id. at 65. On October 23, 2008, the Assessor’s Office wrote to PSMCSD again 

reiterating that the Bill of Sale did not describe the properties at issue, and therefore the Office of 

the Assessor’s records would continue to reflect that one of Alco’s trusts, AWC II Holdings LLC,

was the owner of record. Id. at 66. The Assessor’s Office also sent Alco a letter stating that the 

parcels at issue were “referenced” in the April 11, 2008 Bill of Sale but not “described.” Id. at 68. 

Therefore, the Assessor’s Office did not change ownership of the parcels in its records. Id. The 

Assessor’s Office asked Adcock to contact PSMCSD or a title company to prepare and record the 

Case 5:97-cv-20099-EJD Document 1009 Filed 06/25/19 Page 4 of 11
Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES

5

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

Northern District of California

necessary conveyance documents to enable the Assessor’s Office “to finally remove [Alco] from 

title and reflect [PSMCSD] as the new owner of record as intended with the recording of the Bill 

of Sale.” Id. 

Apparently, no action was taken to address the Assessor’s Office issue for approximately 

four years. During that time, Alco continued to receive, but did not pay, the tax bills for the two 

parcels at issue. Eventually the Receiver’s attorney had the Receiver execute an Addendum to Bill 

of Sale on August 15, 2012, which included as attachments the inadvertently omitted legal 

description of the Moss Landing parcel and the same legal description of the NORMCO parcel

that had been attached to the Bill of Sale. Dkt. No. 1000 at 5 (PSMCSD’s Motion). The 

Receiver’s attorneys filed a Notice of Receiver’s Execution of Addendum to Bill of Sale on 

August 23, 2012, and served the Notice on Alco’s counsel, the Deputy County Counsel, and 

others. Dkt. No. 980. The Recorder’s Office recorded the Addendum to Bill of Sale on 

September 19, 2012. Dkt. No. 1001-1 at 25. On August 12, 2013, Judge Fogel issued an Order 

Discharging Receiver And Terminating Proceedings. Dkt. No. 995.

A couple of years later, in approximately June 2015, the Monterey County Treasurer-Tax 

Collector caused its agent, Bid-4-Assets, to conduct an internet auction to sell the two parcels at 

issue in order to satisfy the delinquent taxes assessed against Alco. Dkt. No. 1005 at 6-7 (Alco’s 

Opp’n). A third-party bidder purportedly purchased both parcels. Id. at 7. The purported sale of 

the parcels resulted in excess tax sales proceeds of approximately $32,000 and has led to two state 

court actions. First, two of Alco’s trusts have filed an action against the County of Monterey 

seeking recovery of the excess tax sales proceeds. Dkt. No. 1007 at 4-16 (AWC Holding Trust v. 

County of Monterey et al., No. 18cv1746). Second, the alleged purchaser of the two parcels at 

issue has filed a quiet title action against PSMCSD. Dkt. No. 1007 at 17-22 (Pacheco v. 

PSMCSD, No. 18cv1728).

Now that the two parcels at issue are the subject of the state court actions, PSMCSD finally 

seeks an order correcting the “clerical mistakes” in the March 4, 2008 Order approving the 

original Bill of Sale. Specifically, PSMCSD requests that the March 4, 2008 Order be amended so 

Case 5:97-cv-20099-EJD Document 1009 Filed 06/25/19 Page 5 of 11
Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES

6

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

Northern District of California

that the sentence, “The Court hereby authorizes and confirms the sale of the five systems to 

PSMCSD and directs the Receiver to execute and deliver the Bill of Sale that has been presented 

to the Court,” is modified to read, “The Court hereby authorizes and confirms the sale of the five 

systems to PSMCSD and directs the Receiver to execute and deliver the Bill of Sale that has been 

presented to the Court as modified by the Addendum to Bill of Sale, including attachments A and 

B thereto, executed by the Receiver on August 15, 2012, and recorded in the Office of the 

Monterey County Recorder on September 19, 2002.” Dkt. No. 1000 at 9 (PSMCSD’s Motion).

III. STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides, in relevant part: “The 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. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or 

without notice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). A district court’s jurisdiction to enter an order nunc pro 

tunc under Rule 60(a) “is limited to making the record reflect what the court actually intended to 

do at an earlier date, but which it did not sufficiently express or accomplish due to some error or 

inadvertence.” Nisenan Tribe of the Nev. City Rancheria v. Jewell, 650 Fed. Appx. 497, 499 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2000)). What the 

district court intended to do may be determined by looking to the circumstances surrounding the 

original order and also to the court’s subsequent statements of its original intent, providing that the 

record gives no reason to doubt such statements. Guenther v. United States, 44 Fed. Appx. 149, 

150 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no time limit for bringing a motion under Rule 60(a). Jones & 

Guerrero Co. v. Sealift Pac., 650 F.2d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 1981).

IV. DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the court need not consider Alco’s opposition to PSMCSD’s motion 

because it is untimely, having been filed one day after the deadline set forth in the court’s Order 

Setting Briefing Schedule For Interested Party’s Motion For Order Correcting Clerical Mistakes 

(Dkt. No. 1003). Nevertheless, the court will address the merits of PSMCSD’s motion because of 

the significant issues it raises and to assist in the efficient and just resolution of the pending state 

Case 5:97-cv-20099-EJD Document 1009 Filed 06/25/19 Page 6 of 11
Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES

7

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

Northern District of California

court actions.

A. Standing

Alco argues that PSMCSD lacks standing to bring the instant motion because PSMCSD is 

not a named party to the action. The argument is without merit. First, Rule 60(a) makes no 

reference to the movant’s status, whether it be party or non-party, and instead recites that the court 

may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is 

found in a judgment or order. In this regard, Rule 60(a) is distinguishable from Rule 60(b), which, 

by its terms affords relief only to “parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (providing that “the court may 

relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. . . .). 

Second, PSMCSD has constitutional standing because it is named in the March 4, 2008 Order and 

the Bill of Sale and asserts that it will be adversely affected by the “clerical error” in the March 4, 

2008 Order if it is not corrected. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)

(stating that the irreducible constitutional minimum for standing requires party to have suffered an 

injury-in-fact which is (a) “concrete and particularized,” (b) “actual or imminent, not conjectural 

or hypothetical,” and (c) likely to be redressed by a favorable decision). 

B. Applicability of Rule 60(a) re Clerical Mistake

Alco contends that the errors PSMCSD seeks to correct are not clerical mistakes, but errors 

subject to the one year or “reasonable time” limitations period set forth in Rule 60(b). Again, 

Alco’s argument is unpersuasive. The record shows that Judge Fogel intended to order the 

transfer of all assets of the five water systems to PSMCSD, which included the two parcels at 

issue, and PSMCSD’s proposed correction will “mak[e] the record reflect what the court actually 

intended to do at an earlier date, but which it did not sufficiently express or accomplish due to 

some error or inadvertence.” Nisenan Tribe v. Jewell, 650 Fed. Appx. at 499. Alco understood 

Judge Fogel’s intent and indeed told PSMCSD in several letters that PSMCSD was responsible for 

the tax bills for the two parcels at issue because the parcels “belong” to PSMCSD. Dkt. No. 1006

at 6, 14, 19, 28, 33, 48, 58. 

The errors PSMCSD seeks to correct are clerical in nature. The Bill of Sale included the 

Case 5:97-cv-20099-EJD Document 1009 Filed 06/25/19 Page 7 of 11
Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES

8

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

Northern District of California

Condition of Title report for NORMCO parcel APN 125-151-006, but should have also included 

(according to the Assessor’s Office) a metes and bounds description of the parcel. The Condition 

of Title report for the Moss Landing parcel APN 131-061-008 was inadvertently omitted. Clerical 

mistakes of omission and inadequate property description are the types of error that a court is 

authorized to correct under FRCP 60(a). Harwick v. United States, No. 79-1710 JF, 2014 WL 

1006576, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2014), aff’d sub nom, Nisenan Tribe of the Nev. City 

Rancheria v. Jewell, 650 F. Appx. 497 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying Rule 60(a) to correct a 

Stipulation For Entry Of Judgment that inadvertently failed to mention a rancheria); see also 

Cunningham v. Frymire, 180 Cal. App. 2d 891, 893-94 (1960) (affirming trial court’s order 

granting motion to amend order to insert inadvertently omitted description of a home).

Alco contends no error was made by the Title Company, Judge Fogel, or the Receiver

because the Bill of Sale accurately described the parcels at issue by APNs. Nevertheless, it is 

clear with the benefit of hindsight that the Bill of Sale and the Condition of Title reports were 

insufficient to carry out Judge Fogel’s intent. The March 4, 2008 Order expressed Judge Fogel’s 

intent to authorize and confirm the sale of the Moss Landing and NORCO water systems to 

PSMCSD. The Judge’s intent was not carried out; the two parcels at issue were purportedly sold 

without PSMCSD’s authorization. 

Alco next argues that PSMCSD should not be able to seek relief under Rule 60(a) because

the only error here is PSMCSD’s “persistent and intransigent failure to take the steps to file a Bill 

of Sale or Deed with actual [l]egal description while it had the opportunity and knowledge to 

easily do so.” Dkt. No. 1005 at 10 (Alco’s Opp’n). Alco’s argument is unpersuasive. The issue 

is whether the March 4, 2008 order contains a clerical error that requires correcting under Rule 

60(a). In each of the cases relied upon by Alco, the court denied Rule 60(a) relief because there 

was no clerical error. 3 For example, in Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 592 F.2d 39 (2nd Cir. 

1979), plaintiffs filed a Rule 60(a) motion seeking to add prejudgment interest to a judgment 

 

3

James Blackstone Memorial Ass’n v. Gulf, M.&O. R. Co., 28 F.R.D. 385 (D. Conn. 1961); 

Ferraro v. Arthur M. Rosenberg Co. of New Haven, 156 F.2d 212, 214 (2nd Cir. 1946).

Case 5:97-cv-20099-EJD Document 1009 Filed 06/25/19 Page 8 of 11
Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES

9

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

Northern District of California

entered in their favor. The court denied the motion, reasoning that (a) the judgment accurately 

reflected the jury’s verdict, (b) the plaintiffs had not requested prejudgment interest in their 

complaint or during the course of trial, and (c) that it was plaintiffs’ failure to bring their statutory 

entitlement to prejudgment interest to the attention of the court in a timely manner that “created 

their problem, not any clerical oversight or error.” Id. at 42. Unlike Lee, the March 4, 2008 Order 

contains a clerical error not of PSMCSD’s making. At most, PSMCSD’s actions or inactions may 

have exacerbated the effects of the clerical errors, and Lee does not foreclose PSMCSD from 

seeking relief to correct the clerical errors.

Citing Matter of West Texas Mktg. Corp., 12 F.3d 497, 504-505 (5th Cir. 1994), Alco 

further contends that the errors PSMCSD now seeks to correct are not merely clerical errors, but 

rather errors requiring “substantive judicial intrusion to amend or correct” that are beyond the 

scope of Rule 60(a). Dkt. No. 1005 at 11 (Alco’s Opp’n). The West Texas Mktg. case supports 

PSMCSD’s position, not Alco’s. In West Texas Mktg., the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 

instructed as follows regarding applicability of Rule 60(a): 

whether the change affects substantive rights of the parties and is 

therefore beyond the scope of Rule 60(a) or is instead a clerical 

error, a copying or computational mistake, which is correctable 

under the Rule. As long as the intentions of the parties are clearly 

defined and all the court need do is employ the judicial eraser to 

obliterate a mechanical or mathematical mistake, the modification 

will be allowed. If, on the other hand, cerebration or research into 

the law or planetary excursions into facts is required, Rule 60(a)

will not be available to salvage the government's blunders. Let it be 

clearly understood that Rule 60(a) is not a perpetual right to apply 

different legal rules or different factual analyses to a case. It is only 

mindless and mechanistic mistakes, minor shifting of facts, and no 

new additional legal perambulations which are reachable through 

Rule 60(a).

Id. As previously discussed, the intent of the Receiver, PSMCSD and Judge Fogel in the instant 

action was clearly defined in the March 4, 2008 Order: to effectuate the sale of the Moss Landing, 

NORMCO and three other water systems to PSMCSD. PSMCSD’s proposed correction will 

ensure that this intent is carried out. No “new additional legal perambulations” are required to 

determine the intent of the Receiver, PSMCSD and Judge Fogel.

Case 5:97-cv-20099-EJD Document 1009 Filed 06/25/19 Page 9 of 11
Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES

10

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

Northern District of California

Alco nevertheless points out that implementing the proposed correction is likely to lead to 

“new legal perambulations” in the underlying state court proceedings. Alco anticipates that the 

proposed correction will lead to issues regarding standing, intervention, the propriety of the tax 

sales, disposition of the delinquent tax sale revenues, and the disposition of the excess tax swales 

proceeds generated by the tax sales. These are issues that the state court is capable of resolving 

should they arise; they have no bearing on whether the March 4, 2008 Order has clerical errors 

requiring correction under Rule 60(a).

Because PSMCSD is seeking relief from a clerical error and such relief is properly sought 

under Rule 60(a) and not 60(b), PSMCSD’s motion is not subject to the time limitations set forth 

in Rule 60(b).

C. Receiver’s Authority to Execute 

Alco contends that Judge Fogel terminated the Receiver’s authorities and duties over the 

parcels at issue when he issued the March 4, 2008 Order, and therefore the Receiver exceeded his 

court-appointed authorization when he executed the Addendum to Bill of Sale years later on 

August 15, 2012. The court disagrees. Judge Fogel did not discharge the Receiver in the March 

4, 2008 Order. Instead, he narrowed the scope of the Receiver’s duties because he reasonably

believed that the Receiver’s duties regarding the parcels at issue had been fulfilled. It was 

unforeseeable (and beyond comprehension), that the County of Monterey would refuse to record 

the transfer of title to all parcels comprising the Moss Landing and NORMCO water systems and 

would later authorize the sale of those parcels. Judge Fogel ordered the transfer, based upon 

evidence that Alco had repeatedly and intentionally violated the Clean Water Act Safe Drinking 

Water Act, to help ensure a clean drinking water supply for Monterey County’s own residents. 

When the Count of Monterey refused to record the transfer of title to all parcels, it was well within 

Receiver’s authority to complete what amounted to a purely administrative function in order to 

implement the court’s March 4, 2008 Order.

D. Alco’s Request to Defer/Delay Ruling

Alco accuses PSMCSD of using the proceedings in this court to obtain “evidence” it can 

Case 5:97-cv-20099-EJD Document 1009 Filed 06/25/19 Page 10 of 11
Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES

11

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

Northern District of California

use in the state court quiet title action. To prevent this from happening, Alco suggests that the 

court dismiss PSMCSD’s motion or defer ruling on the present motion until the quiet tile action is 

resolved. The court declines to do so. This case was initiated in 1997 and litigated for over a 

decade. The court is not interested in any further delays.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, PSMCSD’s motion is GRANTED. The March 4, 2008 

Order is hereby amended nunc pro tunc so that the sentence, “The Court hereby authorizes and 

confirms the sale of the five systems to PSMCSD and directs the Receiver to execute and deliver 

the Bill of Sale that has been presented to the Court,” is modified to read, “The Court hereby 

authorizes and confirms the sale of the five systems to PSMCSD and directs the Receiver to 

execute and deliver the Bill of Sale that has been presented to the Court as modified by the 

Addendum to Bill of Sale, including attachments A and B thereto, executed by the Receiver on 

August 15, 2012, and recorded in the Office of the Monterey County Recorder on September 19, 

2002.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:97-cv-20099-EJD Document 1009 Filed 06/25/19 Page 11 of 11