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

Full title: EL CORTE INGLES, S.A., a Spanish Corporation, Plaintiff, v. CITY LIGHTS…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 26, 2019

CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00213-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2019)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00213-AWI-JLT

12-26-2019

EL CORTE INGLES, S.A., a Spanish Corporation, Plaintiff, v. CITY LIGHTS, LLC, a California LLC; and MARKCHRIS INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California LLC, Defendants.

NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER CORRECTING ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND CORRESPONDING DOCKET TEXT (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)).

ORDER

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."

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 26, 2019

/s/_________

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE