Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02024/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02024-9/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 10-2024-PHX-JAT 

ORDER

 Pending before the Court is Defendants Joan L. Myers and the Estate of Donald 

Myers’ Motion for Correction of Clerical Error Re Order. (Doc. 281). Defendants move 

the Court to correct an error in the order (Doc. 274) granting Plaintiff’s motion to exclude 

purported expert opinions of Robert Comeau (the “motion to exclude”). 

 In the order, the Court stated in a footnote that Defendants failed to file a response 

to the motion to exclude. (Id. at 8 n. 1). However, Defendants contend that they did file a 

response to the motion to exclude referenced in the Court’s docket as document 244. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), “[t]he 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.” 

 The Court finds Defendants’ request is valid. Defendants filed a response to 

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude and the Court mistakenly stated that they did not file a 

response. The Court notes that in addition to filing the required responsive memoranda, 

Case 2:10-cv-02024-JAT Document 293 Filed 09/17/13 Page 1 of 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 

- 2 -

Defendants’ counsel opposed Plaintiff’s motion to exclude at oral argument on February 

4, 2013. Accordingly, as the Court explained in the order, the substantive arguments 

made in Defendants’ response (Doc. 244) are in fact the same arguments addressed in 

Defendants Anne Myers, Erin Myers Stoloff and Kirsten Myers Ruggiano’s response to 

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude (Doc. 243) and those addressed at oral argument by 

Defendants’ counsel. The error has no bearing on the analysis or outcome of the order 

because the Court addressed the merits of Defendants’ arguments in the order. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Joan L. Myers and the Estate of Donald Myers’ 

Motion for Correction of Clerical Error Re Order (Doc. 281) is granted; footnote 1 at page 

8 of the Order granting Plaintiff’s motion to exclude (Doc. 274) is deemed deleted. 

 Dated this 17th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:10-cv-02024-JAT Document 293 Filed 09/17/13 Page 2 of 2