Rivera v. PNS Stores, Inc.
647 F.3d 188
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Rivera sued PNS Stores for premises-liability negligence in state court after a 1998 slip-and-fall incident.
- PNS removed to federal court; summary judgment granted in January 2000, dismissing case without prejudice.
- Rivera refiled in state court; default judgment obtained against PNS in 2000 for $1.48 million, later growing due to interest.
- PNS sought to set aside via bill of review in Texas; Rivera argued the federal judgment was without prejudice by mistake.
- Federal district court corrected the judgment in 2009 under Rule 60(a), changing dismissal to with prejudice, nunc pro tunc.
- State court proceedings and appellate courts observed the correction did not entitle PNS to relief; Rivera appealed to Fifth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(a) can correct clerical designation of dismissal prejudice | Rivera: correction is improper; would alter merits. | PNS: correction reflects the district court's intent and the merits-based dismissal. | Yes; correction authorized to reflect dismissal with prejudice. |
| Whether the correction aligned with the district court's intent and record | Rivera: no clear intent supporting prejudice correction. | PNS: record and subsequent statements show intent to dismiss with prejudice. | Correction consistent with intent; Rule 60(a) permitted. |
| Whether the correction unlawfully expanded the adjudication or affected substantive rights | Rivera: the change could broaden the prior adjudication. | PNS: it simply memorialized what was decided; no substantive expansion. | Correction did not alter substantive rights beyond reflecting the merits-based dismissal. |
| Whether Rule 60(a) can be used when the underlying decision is a summary judgment | Rivera: improper; Rule 60(a) limited to clerical errors in non-merits rulings. | Summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits; clerical correction allowed when reflecting the outcome. | Rule 60(a) applies; summary judgment is inherently with prejudice and properly corrected. |
| Whether equitable estoppel applies to this Rule 60(a) situation | Rivera: estoppel should bar correction based on reliance. | PNS: no misrepresentation by PNS to rely on estoppel defense. | Equitable estoppel not applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Galiardi, 745 F.2d 335 (5th Cir. 1984) (clerical corrections limited to non-substantive errors)
- Miller v. American International Group, 125 F. App'x 578 (5th Cir. 2005) (ambiguity resolveable under Rule 60(a))
- Logan v. Burgers Ozark Country Cured Hams, 263 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2001) (intent evidenced by accompanying materials governs Rule 60(a) amendment)
- Chavez v. Balesh, 704 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1983) (clerical correction aligning with findings permissible)
- Dura-Wood Treating Co. v. Century Forest Indus., Inc., 694 F.2d 112 (5th Cir. 1982) (distinguishes between clerical errors and substantive judgment)
- Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc discussion on Rule 60(a) scope)