American Heritage Railways, Inc. v. Hirou

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 AMERICAN HERITAGE RAILWAYS, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01802-CAB-JLB INC., et al., 12 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 13 v. (1) DENYING MOTION TO 14 CORRECT DOCKET ENTRIES; and BRADLEY ARTHUR HIROU, et al., 15 Defendants. (2) DENYING DEMAND FOR 16 TRACKABLE PROOF OF SERVICE 17 [Doc. Nos. 29, 30] 18

19 I. MOTION TO CORRECT DOCKET ENTRIES 20 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), Defendant seeks to have docket entries 28 and 29, 21 which were both initially labeled within the docket as “Certificate of Service,” instead 22 labeled as “Defendant’s Demand for Trackable Proof of Service from Plaintiffs,” [Doc. 23 No. 29], and “Affidavit in Support of Defendant’s Demand for Trackable Proof of Service 24 from Plaintiff,” [Doc. No. 28]. 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) states that “a clerical mistake or a mistake arising . . . [in] part 26 of the record” can only be corrected with the appellate court’s leave “after an appeal has 27 been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending.” Defendant has filed a notice 28 1 of appeal with the Clerk’s Office of the Ninth Circuit, and the appeal has been docketed. 2 [Doc. No. 26.] The Court thus lacks jurisdiction over Defendant’s motion. Accordingly, 3 the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion and directs Defendant to seek leave from the 4 appellate court so as to enable this Court to modify the docket. [Doc. No. 30.] See Barnes- 5 Wallace v. Boy Scouts of Am., No. 00-CV-1726-J (AJB), 2004 WL 7334947, at *3 (S.D. 6 Cal. May 25, 2004) (directing party to seek leave from appellate court to correct clerical 7 error following appeal). 9 Although not docketed as a motion, Defendant seeks trackable proof of service for 10 Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, [Doc. No. 29], which the Court granted in its 11 February 26, 2025 order. [Doc. No. 20.] Plaintiffs filed a declaration that they served the 12 motion upon Defendant by mail. [Doc. No. 9-10.] Defendant alleges he did not receive 13 service of the motion despite previously responding to one of Plaintiffs’ briefs which was 14 served by identical means. Defendant states that if Plaintiffs fail to provide proof of 15 service, Defendant may seek to have the preliminary injunction vacated and request a 16 hearing on whether service was effective. Defendant, however, has already appealed the 17 order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. [Doc. No. 26.] The Court 18 thus lacks jurisdiction over Defendant’s motion/demand as it could affect the Court’s now- 19 appealed judgment on the preliminary injunction. See U.S. v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842, 20 850 (9th Cir. 1984) (finding that a district court generally loses its jurisdiction over “a 21 defendant’s interlocutory claim . . . from the time the defendant files its notice of appeal 22 until the appeal is resolved.”). The motion/demand for trackable proof of service is 25 Defendant’s motion to correct the docket and motion/demand for trackable proof of 26 service is DENIED. Given the Court’s now-limited jurisdiction over this case, Defendant 27 is henceforth required to seek leave of the Court to make any additional filings in this 28 case. See Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th 1 1998) (affirming the inherent power of district courts “to control their dockets and [] 2 ||impose sanctions . . . in the exercise of that discretion.”). The Clerk of Court is instructed 3 ||to STRIKE any additional filings made by Defendant without leave of the Court. 4 It is SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: April 7, 2025 □ Z 7 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28