El Corte Ingles, S.A. v. City Lights, LLC

Opinion

EL CORTE INGLES, S.A., a Spanish CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00213-AWI-JLT Corporation, Plaintiff, NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER v. CORRECTING ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CITY LIGHTS, LLC, a California LLC; and SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL MARKCHRIS INVESTMENTS, LLC, a SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND California LLC, CORRESPONDING DOCKET TEXT

Defendants. (Doc. No. 32)

This Order addresses a clerical error in the Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Adjudication (“Order,” Doc. No. 32) in this action. Page 16, line 23 of the Order refers erroneously to “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.” The docket text for the Order duplicates the erroneous language at page 16, line 23 of the Order and, thus, also refers in one instance to “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.” As indicated in the caption and body of the Order, the motion at issue was, in fact, brought by Plaintiff El Corte Ingles, S.A. Both the Order and the corresponding docket entry should therefore refer only to “Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” To eliminate any risk of confusion, the Court corrects the Order nunc pro tunc by striking the word “Defendants’” from the phrase “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” at page 16, line 23 of the Order and replacing it with the word “Plaintiff’s.” Moreover, the Court corrects the docket text for the Order by striking the term “Defendants’” from the phrase “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” therein, and replacing it with the word “Plaintiff’s.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a) (stating that “[t]he court may correct a clerical mistake ... found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record” and that the court may do so “on its own, with or without notice’); Nisenan Tribe of Nevada City Rancheria v. Jewell, 650 F. App’x 497, 499 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming nunc pro tunc order correcting clerical error under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a)). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The word “Defendants’” is stricken from the phrase “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” at page 16, line 23 of the Court’s Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Adjudication (Doc. No. 32) and replaced with the word “Plaintiff's”; and 2. The word “Defendants’” is stricken from the phrase “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” in the docket text for Docket Entry No. 32 and replaced with the word “Plaintiff's.” Dated: _ December 26, 2019 —= ZS Cb □□ — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE