1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.: 3:18-cv-02280-DMS-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT 13 v. 14 CALIFORNIA ENERGY [ECF No. 403] DEVELOPMENT INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 On August 29, 2022, the Court entered a Judgment Granting Injunctive Relief (the 20 “August 29 Judgment”) to Life Advance, LLC (“Life Advance”). ECF No. 398. The 21 Judgment was entered concurrently with the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying 22 in Part Life Advance’s ex parte Motion for Order to Show Cause why John J. Walsh should 23 not be enjoined and sanctioned for filing State Court Complaint in violation of settlement 24 agreement, for injunctive relief and award of attorney fees (the “August 29 Order”). ECF 25 No. 397. 26 In the August 29 Order, the Court held that Life Advance was entitled to an award 27 of the attorney fees and costs that it has reasonably incurred in seeking to enforce its 28 settlement agreement with Mr. Walsh, including all fees and costs incurred in bringing (1) 1 the Motion for Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 375), and (2) the Supplemental Declaration 2 regarding the Motion for Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 390), to include all time spent 3 communicating with Mr. Walsh to try to obtain his voluntary dismissal of the lawsuits at 4 issue, preparing and briefing the motion and supplemental declaration, and preparing for 5 and attending the Show Cause Hearing, in addition to all costs reasonably incurred in 6 connection therewith. ECF No. 397 at 30. Life Advance was ordered to file a supplemental 7 fee application detailing all such fees and costs by September 6, 2022. Id. The Court further 8 permitted Life Advance to include in its fee application all hours expended on preparing 9 the fee application itself. Id. 10 On November 22, 2022, the Court granted Life Advance’s Supplemental Fee 11 Application, ordering Mr. Walsh to pay Life Advance a total of $18,230.65 within 30 days, 12 or by December 22, 2022. ECF No. 402. 13 Life Advance now requests that the Court’s August 29 Judgment be amended to 14 include the Court’s award of attorney fees and costs to Life Advance. ECF No. 403. Under 15 Rule 54, a party must move for attorney fees and costs no later than 14 days after the entry 16 of judgment, unless a statute or court order provides otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B). 17 Here, Life Advance timely filed its supplemental application for attorney fees and costs on 18 September 6, 2022, seven days after the entry of judgment. See ECF Nos. 397, 399. The 19 Court granted that motion in accordance with its prior ruling in the August 29 Order, 20 finding Life Advance was entitled not only to injunctive relief but also to attorney fees and 21 costs in connection with Mr. Walsh’s breach of the settlement agreement. See ECF No. 22 402 at 2 (explaining that the Court had already determined in the August 29 Order “that, 23 pursuant to the settlement agreement between Life Advance and Mr. Walsh, Mr. Walsh is 24 obligated to pay Life Advance’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection 25 with Life Advance’s efforts to enforce the settlement agreement.”). 26 Notably, it is not necessary for the Court to enter a separate judgment under Rule 58 27 for an award of attorney fees and costs to a prevailing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(3). See 28 United States v. Bus. Recovery Servs., LLC, No. CV 11-0390-PHX-JAT, 2012 WL 1 3064253, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 26, 2012) (“Because Plaintiff's motion for fees was made in 2 a manner consistent with the procedures listed in Rule 54, the exception contained in Rule 3 58(a)(3) should apply. The Court does not need to enter a separate judgment on the 4 attorneys’ fees order and therefore will not do so.”); see also Cal. Med. Ass'n v. Shalala, 5 207 F.3d 575, 576 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that post-judgment orders granting attorney 6 fee awards are independently appealable and may be appealed separately from the final 7 judgment). 8 However, “Rule 60(a) allows a court to clarify a judgment in order to correct a 9 ‘failure to memorialize part of its decision,’ to reflect the necessary implications’ of the 10 original order, to ‘ensure that the court’s purpose is fully implemented,’ or to ‘permit 11 enforcement.’” Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting, inter 12 alia, Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987)) (other quotations omitted). 13 Thus, although amending the judgment is not required to effectuate the award of attorney 14 fees and costs, the Court finds it appropriate to do so here, in order to accurately reflect the 15 “necessary implications” of the Court’s concurrently entered August 29 Order granting 16 injunctive relief and attorney fee sanctions to Life Advance. That is, while the Court did 17 not immediately award such fees and costs in the August 29 Judgment, the Court had 18 already determined in the August 29 Order that Life Advance was indeed entitled to them, 19 and had further stated that a fee award would be granted following review of Life 20 Advance’s supplemental fee application. See ECF No. 397 at 29-30, 33. See Blanton, 813 21 F.2d at 1577 (“In deciding whether a trial court may alter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 60(a), our circuit focuses on what the court originally intended to do. A judge may 23 invoke Rule 60(a) in order to make a judgment reflect the actual intentions of the court, 24 plus the necessary implications”); Garamendi, 683 F.3d at 1079 (explaining that Rule 60(a) 25 may properly be used to amend a judgment in order to “construe the judgment, consistently 26 with its language, in accordance with the contemporaneous intent of the court as well as 27 the understanding of the parties.”) (quoting Jackson v. Jackson, 276 F.2d 501, 503 (D.C. 28 Cir. 1960)). Additionally, including the award of fees and costs in the judgment will permit 1 enforcement of the fee award. “Rule 60(a) allows for clarification and explanation, with 2 ||the intent of the original judgment, even in the absence of ambiguity, if necessary for 3 enforcement.” Garamendi, 683 F.3d at 1079. 4 Therefore, because the Court originally intended to grant attorney fees and costs to 5 || Life Advance in its August 29 Order, which was entered concurrently with the judgment, 6 || the Court finds it appropriate to apply Rule 60(a) in this instance to amend the judgment to 7 reflect the contemporaneous intent of the Court. 8 For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Life Advance’s Motion to Amend the 9 || Judgment (ECF No. 403) to include the Court’s award of attorney fees and costs set forth 10 its November 22, 2022 Order (ECF No. 402). The Court will enter the amended 11 ||judgment separately. 12 Finally, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to John J. 13 || Walsh at: 14 6027 Charae Street 15 San Diego, CA 92122 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: December 8, 2022 18 AWioevdH. Koolarse 19 Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28