John Garamendi v. Jean-Francois Hennin
683 F.3d 1069
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Sierra National Insurance Holdings and the California Commissioner obtained default judgments against Jean-François Hénin for approximately $10.8 million and for Sierra approximately $3.3 billion in damages, with liability established but damages to be determined.
- France refused enforcement of the judgments due to lack of information allowing the French court to distinguish between punitive and compensatory damages and identify the causes of sentences.
- The district court later corrected the judgments under Rule 60(a) to clarify details for enforcement in France, while leaving substantive provisions unchanged.
- The corrected judgments state that liability remains identical to the original judgments and that corrections merely reflect contemporaneous intent and necessary implications for enforcement.
- Hénin appeals the Rule 60(a) corrections, arguing potential changes in liability and punitive elements, and challenging the district court’s handling of setoff and release issues.
- The Ninth Circuit affirms, holding that Rule 60(a) corrections were proper, that Hénin waived challenges to setoff/release by not contesting the originals, and that no stay was warranted for entry of the amended judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(a) authorizes corrections to reflect enforcement intent | Garamendi/Sierra: corrections clarify intent for enforcement in France | Hénin: corrections alter substantive terms | Yes; corrections authorized (no substantive change) |
| Whether the corrections waived challenge to setoff or release | Sierra: original judgments unchanged; setoff/release not reopened | Hénin: could challenge setoff/release now | Waived; no new challenge permitted |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by refusing stay of amended judgments | Corrections needed for enforcement; no stay required | Hénin: should stay pending related damages trial | No abuse; no stay required |
Key Cases Cited
- Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574 (9th Cir. 1987) (a Rule 60(a) correction focuses on original intent)
- Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1983) (clarification of judgment to reflect tacit intention)
- Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 918 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1990) (amendment to identify specific trademarks to reflect original judgment)
- Agro Dutch Indus. Ltd. v. United States, 589 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (broad discretion to correct clerical errors to conform to intent)
- Rivera v. PNS Stores, Inc., 647 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 2011) (Rule 60(a) permits enforcement-focused clarifications)