Opinion ID: 200468
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: April 1, 2002, Amended Judgment

Text: 69 Finally, the defendants cite what appears to be a clerical error in the amended judgment. The district court entered judgment on September 5, 2001. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff moved to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) for the purpose of adding prejudgment interest. The defendants did not oppose the motion, and the court issued an amended judgment on April 1, 2002. In the amended judgment, the district court omitted the following sentence that had been present in the initial judgment: [A]nd it is FURTHER ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant Pot O'Gold Money Leagues, Inc. on the plaintiff's claims against it that were tried before the jury. Although the plaintiffs prevailed in their claims against Kratze and Germain, the jury concluded that Pot O'Gold was not liable for fraudulent inducement. Therefore, on that claim, Pot O'Gold was the prevailing party. This sentence should have been retained in the amended judgment. Therefore, we will direct the district court to restore the deleted language to its amended judgment.