El Corte Ingles, S.A. v. City Lights, LLC ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 EL CORTE INGLES, S.A., a Spanish CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00213-AWI-JLT Corporation, 9 Plaintiff, NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER 10 v. CORRECTING ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 11 CITY LIGHTS, LLC, a California LLC; and SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL MARKCHRIS INVESTMENTS, LLC, a SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND 12 California LLC, CORRESPONDING DOCKET TEXT 13 Defendants. (Doc. No. 32) 14 15 16 17 This Order addresses a clerical error in the Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for 18 Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Adjudication (“Order,” Doc. No. 32) in this action. 19 Page 16, line 23 of the Order refers erroneously to “Defendants’ Motion for Summary 20 Judgment.” The docket text for the Order duplicates the erroneous language at page 16, line 23 of 21 the Order and, thus, also refers in one instance to “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.” 22 As indicated in the caption and body of the Order, the motion at issue was, in fact, brought 23 by Plaintiff El Corte Ingles, S.A. Both the Order and the corresponding docket entry should 24 therefore refer only to “Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” 25 To eliminate any risk of confusion, the Court corrects the Order nunc pro tunc by striking 26 the word “Defendants’” from the phrase “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” at page 16, 27 line 23 of the Order and replacing it with the word “Plaintiff’s.” Moreover, the Court corrects the 28 1 | docket text for the Order by striking the term “Defendants’” from the phrase “Defendants’ Motion 2 | for Summary Judgment” therein, and replacing it with the word “Plaintiff’s.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 3 | 60(a) (stating that “[t]he court may correct a clerical mistake ... found in a judgment, order, or 4 | other part of the record” and that the court may do so “on its own, with or without notice’); 5 | Nisenan Tribe of Nevada City Rancheria v. Jewell, 650 F. App’x 497, 499 (9th Cir. 2016) 6 | (affirming nunc pro tunc order correcting clerical error under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a)). 7 8 ORDER 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The word “Defendants’” is stricken from the phrase “Defendants’ Motion for Summary 11 Judgment” at page 16, line 23 of the Court’s Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary 12 Judgment or Partial Summary Adjudication (Doc. No. 32) and replaced with the word 13 “Plaintiff's”; and 14 2. The word “Defendants’” is stricken from the phrase “Defendants’ Motion for Summary 15 Judgment” in the docket text for Docket Entry No. 32 and replaced with the word 16 “Plaintiff's.” 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: _ December 26, 2019 —= ZS Cb □□ — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28