Farrow v. J. CREW GROUP INC.
12 A.3d 28
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Farrow sued J. Crew for damages from a fall outside its store; original defendants included 3222 M Street, Inc., Miller Realty, and J. Crew, Inc.; the trial court dismissed all but J. Crew on Farrow's motion (Aug 10, 2007).
- After a summary judgment motion by J. Crew and a cross-motion for partial summary judgment by Farrow, the court issued an order on Sept 25–26, 2008 denying Farrow and granting J. Crew; a separate judgment was entered Oct 1, 2008 naming 3223 M Street, Inc. as the defendant.
- The judgment caption incorrectly identified the remaining defendant and referred to a dismissed party; Farrow filed Rule 59(e) motions on Oct 27 and Oct 30, 2008 (considered untimely).
- Farrow filed a notice of appeal on Dec 5, 2008; J. Crew argued lack of jurisdiction due to untimely appeal and because there was no proper final order.
- The court held the underlying judgment was final despite the clerical error and misnaming, corrigible by Rule 60(a); the appeal from the judgment was untimely, but the court retained jurisdiction to review the Rule 60(b) denial.
- The court remanded to correct the record to reflect entry of judgment in favor of J. Crew.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is timely despite Rule 59(e) timing. | Farrow argues finality was never properly entered, so appeal remains timely. | J. Crew asserts untimely appeal under Rule 4(a) because no proper final order. | Appeal untimely; jurisdiction lacking for underlying judgment. |
| Whether clerical error in judgment (misnaming defendant) destroys finality. | Error prevents valid final judgment needing correction. | Errors are clerical and correctionable under Rule 60(a). | Final judgment valid; clerical error fixable under Rule 60(a). |
| Whether Rule 54(b)/58 separate-document requirements affect finality here. | Rule 54(b)/58 imply no final judgment due to multiple parties. | Not applicable; only one party remained and judgment suffices. | Not applicable; Rule 54(b)/58 did not prevent finality. |
| Whether Farrow was misled into thinking no appealable order existed and waiver applies. | Misleading circumstances meant no proper final appeal. | No substantial mislead; Farrow treated judgment as final. | Not misled; waiver of strict compliance; appeal still untimely. |
| Whether the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion can be reviewed on appeal. | Rule 60(b) denial merits review. | Rule 60(b) review is limited and underlying record incomplete. | 60(b) review permitted; standard is abuse of discretion; record insufficient to show abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratt v. Petroleum Prod. Mgmt. Emp. Sav. Plan & Trust, 920 F.2d 651 (10th Cir. 1990) (clerical errors in judgment may be corrected under Rule 60(a))
- Tolson v. District of Columbia, 860 A.2d 336 (DC 2004) (authority to vacate a judgment to correct clerical errors under Rule 58/60)
- Murtaugh v. Spann, 728 A.2d 1237 (DC 1999) (separate document rule can be waived if final judgment intended)
- Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (Supreme Court 1978) (separate judgment requirements focus on finality and fairness)
- Fleming v. District of Columbia, 633 A.2d 846 (DC 1993) (Rule 59(e) time limits toll appeal when timely; untimely denial not appealable)
- Frain v. District of Columbia, 572 A.2d 447 (DC 1990) (Rule 4 tolling; timely 59(e) motion required for tolling)