Volle v. Sherwin Petroleum, Inc.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-00545
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Volle v. Sherwin Petroleum, Judge Hamilton granted Volle’s motion to correct a judgment so it included previously intended injunctive relief.
Debra Volle and Sherwin Petroleum, Inc.; the judgment against Sherwin Petroleum was amended to include injunctive relief.
What happened
In Volle v. Sherwin Petroleum, Inc., Debra Volle sued Sherwin Petroleum under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act. Sherwin Petroleum did not appear, and the court entered a default judgment awarding Volle damages, fees, costs, and litigation expenses.
The court’s judgment did not include injunctive relief, even though the court’s earlier order had adopted a recommendation that included such relief. Volle asked the court to correct the judgment under a rule allowing clerical mistakes or omissions to be corrected.
The court granted the motion and ordered an amended judgment that reflected its original intent to award injunctive relief. Judge Hamilton signed the order on March 24, 2020.
The detailed version
- Volle v. Sherwin Petroleum, Inc. · No. 4:19-cv-00545
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 24, 2020
Background
Debra Volle filed claims against Sherwin Petroleum, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act. Volle served Sherwin Petroleum’s authorized agent and later filed a first amended complaint after a joint site inspection. Sherwin Petroleum participated in the inspection but did not appear in the case.
Volle moved for default judgment. Magistrate Judge Cousins recommended granting that motion, awarding $12,000 in statutory damages, $10,664.50 in attorney’s fees and costs, and injunctive relief requiring modification of Sherwin Petroleum’s property. The court instead awarded $4,000 in statutory damages, $550 in costs, $6,720 in attorney’s fees, and $3,047 in litigation expenses, for a total of $13,867. The court also awarded the injunctive relief described in the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The subsequently issued judgment listed the monetary awards, attorney’s fees, and costs but did not include the injunctive relief.
Motion and Analysis
Volle moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). That rule permits a court to correct a clerical mistake or an omission in a judgment when the correction reflects what the court previously intended to do. The court explained that Rule 60(a) may also be used to clarify an ambiguous judgment so that the court’s original purpose can be enforced.
The court concluded that it had intended to award injunctive relief. That intent was shown by its adoption of the magistrate judge’s recommendation and its specific reference to the injunctive relief described there. Because the judgment omitted that relief, the court decided to issue an amended judgment reflecting its original intent.
Disposition
The court GRANTS Volle’s motion for relief from judgment and will issue an amended judgment including the intended injunctive relief. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on March 24, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.