10-3560-cv Szafran v. Sandata Techs., Inc. 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citinga summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appe ndix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary or der must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 1 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on 2 the 2 ndday of December, two thousand eleven. 3 4 PRESENT: 5 6 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 7 CHESTER J. STRAUB, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Circuit Judges

. 10 11 12 13 EMIL SZAFRAN, 14 Plaintiff-Appellant , 15 16 -v- No. 10-3560-cv 17 18 SANDATA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 19 Defendant-Appellee

. 20 21 22 23 SANFORD F. YOUNG, Law Offices of Sanford F. Young, New 24 York, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant. 25 26 MARTIN D. EDEL, Miller & Wrubel P.C., New York, New York, 27 for Defendant-Appellee

. 28 29 30 Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the Eastern District of New York 31 (Seybert, Judge ). 322 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is he reby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED 1 that the case is REMANDED to the District Court fo r further proceedings consistent with this order. 2 On May 11, 2009, the District Court entered judgment for Plaintiff Emil Szafran (“Szafran”) 3 on Szafran’s contract claim and for Sandata Technologies, Inc. (“Sandata”) on his quantum meruit 4 claim. On February 3, 2010, the District Court vacat ed the jury award as to damages on the contract 5 claim. On June 3, 2010, the District Court entered an order vacating the judgment of May 11, 2009 6 and reopening the case. On August 13, 2010, the District Court entered a final judgment “in favor 7 of the plaintiff and against the defendant on th e breach of contract cl aim in the amount of $60,000, 8 inclusive of any and all interests, costs and disbursements to date.” 9 From the representations of counsel for both partie s, as well as from the fact that the District 10 Court “so-ordered” a stipulation that expressly rec ognized the parties’ intent to bring about “a final 11 Judgment from which an appeal can be taken,” we infer that the District Court intended its August 12 13, 2010 order to enter final judgment on all claims brought by Szafran against Sandata. However, 13 to make this clear beyond cavil, this case is remande d to the District Court with leave to amend the 14 final judgment of August 13, 2010, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), by inserting the following after 15 the words “disbursements to date”: “and in favor of the defendant on the quantum meruit claim and 16 the New York labor law claim.” Ju risdiction will be restored to this panel when either party informs 17 us by letter that the final judgment of August 13, 2010 has been amended as discussed herein. See 18 United States v. Jacobson , 15 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 1994). 19 FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 21 22