Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00501-17/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennly R. Becker
Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Inc.
Defendant

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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DENNLY R. BECKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., INC., 

Defendant. 

Civ. No. S 12-cv-501 KJM CKD 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff-Appellant Dennly R. Becker has filed a motion to settle the record on 

appeal. Defendant-Appellee Wells Fargo Bank has opposed the motion and Becker has filed a 

reply. The court ordered the motion submitted on the papers and now DENIES it. 

 Under Rule 10(e) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, “[i]f any difference 

arises about whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court, the difference 

must be submitted to and settled by that court and the record conformed accordingly.” Plaintiff 

asks for an order “clarifying” that defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 87, and its 

accompanying request for judicial notice, ECF No. 88, were not before this court before the order 

docketed on August 16, 2013, ECF No. 89, was signed. However, there is no difference about 

what the record discloses: the docket reflects that the motion to dismiss was filed at 1:12 a.m. 

Pacific Daylight Time on August 16, and the request for judicial notice at 1:15 a.m. while the 

order, signed on August 15, 2013 was docketed the morning of August 16 at 10:29 Pacific 

Case 2:12-cv-00501-KJM-CKD Document 101 Filed 11/13/13 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

Daylight Time. As there is no difference about what occurred, the motion is denied. See Mayhew 

v. West-Watt, Civil Action No. 09-cv-02684 PAB CBS, 2012 WL 1672888, at *2 (D. Colo. May 

11, 2012); see also United States v. Robinson, No. 3:00-CR-129, 2008 WL 4763319 (E.D. Tenn. 

Oct. 28, 2008) (denying a motion when the motion questioned the court’s interpretation of a 

verdict). 

 To the extent plaintiff challenges the composition of the record on appeal, that 

challenge is properly presented to the Court of Appeals. See FED. R. APP. P. 10(e)(3) (“All other 

questions as to the form and content of the record must be presented to the court of appeals.”). 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to settle the record, ECF No. 96, 

is denied. 

Dated: November 13, 2013. 

 

 

Case 2:12-cv-00501-KJM-CKD Document 101 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 2