Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00217/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00217-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathryn Louise Jones
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

 The court finds that oral argument is not necessary, and vacates the hearing of 1

November 1, 2007.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CIV S-06-0217 FCD GGH PS

vs.

KATHRYN LOUISE JONES,

Defendant. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

_______________________________/ RECOMMENDATIONS

Presently before the court is the government’s motion to amend the judgment,

filed September 6, 2007. No opposition has been filed. 1

The government moves to correct the order of judgment entered September 15,

2006, by the district court which adopted this court’s findings and recommendations and ordered,

inter alia, UCC Financing Statement number 05-702535214 adjudged and declared null, void

and without legal effect. The government asserts that its trial attorney made an inadvertent error

in omitting one digit from this financing statement number. The correct financing statement

number is 05-7025355214. 

Case 2:06-cv-00217-FCD-GGH Document 39 Filed 10/25/07 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

2

The government urges the court to apply Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) to correct this

mistake, labeling it a clerical error. The government concedes, however, that this mistake was

due to inadvertence by its trial attorney. Therefore, Rule 60(a) which applies to the court’s

clerical errors is inapplicable, and Rule 60(b) is applicable. It provides in part that a party may

obtain relief from a final judgment based on mistake or inadvertence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). 

Such a motion must be made within a year after judgement. The government’s motion was made

on September 6, 2007, less than one year after the district court entered its September 15, 2006

judgment.

Based on the inadvertence of the government’s trial attorney, this court will

recommend granting its motion.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the November 1, 2007 hearing on the

government’s motion to amend the judgment is vacated from the calendar.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. The government’s motion to amend the judgment be granted, and the order

granting judgment in favor of the government be amended as follows:

2. UCC Financing Statement Number No. 05-7025355214, filed by defendant on

May 5, 2005, as well as the purported default judgments, filed September 21, 2004, and

containing docket number 12391, at pages 757, 755, and 753, filed with the County Recorder of

Pima County Arizona, be adjudged and declared null, void, and without legal effect. 

3. Leave be granted for plaintiff to file the judgment and order of this court with

the California Secretary of State and in the public records of any other jurisdiction where

documents identical to UCC Financing Statement, Document Number 05-7025355214, or the

aforementioned default judgments, have been filed by defendant.

4. Defendant Kathryn Louise Jones, her agents, employees and any other

participants, be permanently enjoined from filing or attempting to file any document or

instrument which purports to create any nonconsensual lien or encumbrance against the person or

Case 2:06-cv-00217-FCD-GGH Document 39 Filed 10/25/07 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

 Attorney’s fees and costs have already been awarded pursuant to the original order. See 2

Order, filed October 24, 2006.

3

property of any employee or officer of the United States.

5. Plaintiff United States be awarded its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees

incurred in this action; attorney Jennings shall submit a recalculated fees amount within ten

days.2

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

(10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 10/25/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076

USJones0217.60b.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-00217-FCD-GGH Document 39 Filed 10/25/07 Page 3 of 3