Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11291/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11291-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dana Block
Appellee
Gregory A. Burk
Appellee
Tim Carr
Appellee
Jessica Casey
Appellee
Victoria Castillo
Appellee
Jeremy Cozart
Appellee
Coddie B. Dean
Appellee
Michael Frank
Appellee
Johnny L. Keel
Appellee
Lloyd Ward P.C.
Appellant
Vallery S. Mann
Appellee
Jo Minaya
Appellee
John R. Nelson
Appellee
Brian Parker
Appellee
Christopher J. Pitre
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11291

Summary Calendar

BRIAN PARKER; MICHAEL FRANK; JEREMY COZART; VICTORIA 

CASTILLO; DANA BLOCK; JOHNNY L. KEEL; JESSICA CASEY; 

GREGORY A. BURK; VALLERY S. MANN; JO MINAYA; CHRISTOPHER J. 

PITRE; TIM CARR; JOHN R. NELSON; CODDIE B. DEAN, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

LLOYD WARD P.C., doing business as Lloyd Ward & Associates, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC 3:10-CV-1332

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lloyd Ward P.C. appeals the district court’s modification of final

judgment under Rule 60(a). Ward did not respond to the Rule 60(a) motion 

below; accordingly, we review only for plain error and find none. See Ward v. 

Rhode, 544 F. App’x 349, 351 (5th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (citing Douglass v. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 20, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-11291 Document: 00513050594 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2015
No. 14-11291

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)). Although 

the jury awarded fourteen plaintiffs damages in this Fair Labor Standards Act

case, the district court’s final judgment listed only ten. After learning of this 

mistake, the district court modified the judgment to include all fourteen 

plaintiffs. Rule 60(a) explicitly allows district courts to correct these types of 

transcription errors. See Rivera v. PNS Stores, Inc., 647 F.3d 188, 193-94 (5th 

Cir. 2011). There is no doubt that the court’s mistake was inadvertent because 

the jury unambiguously found in favor of fourteen plaintiffs and no subsequent 

order altered the jury’s findings. Because the district court did not plainly err, 

we AFFIRM. Appellees’ motion for sanctions is DENIED. 

2

Case: 14-11291 Document: 00513050594 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2015