548 F. App'x 857
4th Cir.2013Background
- Rhodes and Cochran sued Hartford in West Virginia state court for bad faith and Hayseeds damages after Hartford, as surety, bonded a mortgage broker; Hartford removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- District court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and entered dismissal without prejudice.
- Hartford moved to correct the judgment under Rule 60(a); the court granted relief, changing the dismissal to with prejudice.
- Appellants appealed the dismissal and the Rule 60(a) correction; the appeal from the underlying dismissal was timely only as to the Rule 60(a) order, not the underlying judgment.
- This court sua sponte considered appellate jurisdiction and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying dismissal, but could review the Rule 60(a) order.
- The court held Rule 60(a) correction was authorized to reflect dismissal with prejudice, and the appeal accordingly was dismissed in part and affirmed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal from underlying dismissal | Rhodes/Cochran argue timely appeal from dismissal. | Hartford contends appeal from underlying dismissal is untimely. | Appeal regarding underlying dismissal dismissed; timely only for Rule 60(a) relief. |
| Authority and scope of Rule 60(a) correction | Rule 60(a) cannot alter substantive results post-judgment. | Rule 60(a) may correct clerical mistakes, reflecting the court's intent. | District court authorized to correct to reflect dismissal with prejudice. |
| Whether the correction altered substantive rights beyond clerical error | Correction changed rights by converting without prejudice to with prejudice. | Correction merely reflected the court's intent and did not introduce new merits. | Correction was clerical; did not impermissibly alter merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (timeliness of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards discussed for dismissal standards)
- Rivera v. PNS Stores, Inc., 647 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 2011) (Rule 60(a) relief limited to clerical corrections; cannot review merits)
- Int'l Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665 (2d Cir. 1977) (timing of appeal in Rule 60(a) context; underlying judgment timeline)
- Pfizer Inc. v. Uprichard, 422 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2005) (distinguishes clerical corrections from merits-based changes)
- In re Walter, 282 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2002) (clarifies scope of Rule 60(a) corrections)
- In re Jee, 799 F.2d 532 (9th Cir. 1986) (ancillary discussion on intent and contemporaneous record evidence)