566 F. App'x 608
9th Cir.2014Background
- DePrins sued for wrongful death/negligence after his parents were fatally shot by Donald Belanger; claims were against Belanger’s Estate (and its representative Michaeles) and against Christina and Aaron Clark (the Clarks).
- Magistrate judge heard and granted summary judgment for the Clarks at a July 28, 2011 hearing; docket minute referred to the Clarks but concluded with the words "case is dismissed."
- On July 29, 2011 the district court clerk entered a single judgment dismissing the action in its entirety. No judge-signed form of judgment appears in the record approving that form.
- DePrins filed a Rule 60(a) motion to correct the clerk’s entry (asserting that the Estate and Michaeles remained defendants); Michaeles later executed a waiver of service and filed an answer.
- The magistrate judge denied DePrins’ motion as an untimely Rule 59(e) motion; DePrins appealed. The majority vacated the clerk’s entry and the denial and remanded; one judge dissented as to resolving the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper classification of DePrins’ post-judgment motion | Motion sought clerical correction under Rule 60(a); not an untimely Rule 59(e) motion | District court treated it as an untimely Rule 59(e) motion and denied | Motion was properly styled as Rule 60(a); if deemed untimely 59(e) it should be considered under Rule 60(b) |
| Whether dismissal applied to Estate and Michaeles for lack of service | Dismissal was clerical/erroneous because Estate and Michaeles remained defendants and had waived service/filed answer | Clarks implied dismissal encompassed entire case | Dismissal as to Estate and Michaeles was improper; no record showing dismissal for failure to serve and waiver/answer existed |
| Form and authority for clerk’s entry of judgment | Clerk’s entry was improper because final judgment required judicial approval under Rule 58 and Rule 54(b) didn’t apply | Entry was valid as ordered dismissal | Clerk could not enter that form of final judgment without judge’s approval; grant to Clarks was not a Rule 54(b) final judgment because no express certification |
| Relief and next steps | Vacate the dismissal and denial; remand for further proceedings; plaintiff may seek final judgment or Rule 54(b) certification for appeal | (Implicit) judgment was final and time for appeal/59(e) relief lapsed | Court vacated the July 29, 2011 dismissal, vacated denial of motion, remanded; parties bear own costs; plaintiff must await final judgment or obtain 54(b) certification to appeal merits against Clarks |
Key Cases Cited
- McCalla v. Royal MacCabees Life Ins. Co., 869 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir.) (standard for reviewing classification of post-judgment motions)
- Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(a); limits of Rule 60(a) corrections)
- Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for dismissal for failure to serve)
- Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967 (9th Cir.) (court may not sua sponte dismiss for lack of service without notice and opportunity to show good cause)
- Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892 (9th Cir.) (treating untimely Rule 59(e) motion as Rule 60(b) motion)
- Ynques v. Cabral, 985 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir.) (erroneous legal reading can constitute a "mistake" warranting Rule 60 relief)
- SEC v. Seaboard Corp., 666 F.2d 414 (9th Cir.) (Rule 60(b) should be given liberal construction; disfavor default judgments)
- Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020 (U.S.) (vacatur strips an order of binding effect and clears the path for relitigation)