Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:15-cv-00211
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, District Judge Schofield granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to correct an omitted surviving-claim reference.
The parties in the case, particularly the plaintiffs whose motion to correct the earlier order was granted.
What happened
In Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, the plaintiffs asked the court to correct an earlier opinion and order under a federal court rule allowing clerical mistakes to be corrected.
The earlier order had adopted a report addressing the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment but accidentally left out references to a claim that had survived dismissal. The opinion does not identify that claim.
District Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the unopposed motion, stating that the correction did not change the earlier order’s meaning. The court said an amended version would issue under seal, along with a redacted public version, and directed the clerk to close the motion docket entry.
The detailed version
- Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-00211
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 20, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to correct the court’s March 24, 2020, Opinion and Order. Rule 60(a) permits a court to correct a clerical mistake or an omission in an order, but does not permit a change that alters the order’s original meaning or corrects a legal or factual error.
The March 24 order had adopted in full a report and recommendation concerning the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The court stated that the order inadvertently omitted references to a claim that the report had not dismissed.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion. The court determined that adding the omitted references would implement the original intended result and would not alter the order’s meaning or correct a legal or factual error.
The court stated that an Amended Opinion and Order would issue separately under seal and that a redacted public version would also issue, consistent with earlier approved redactions. The clerk was directed to close the motion’s docket entry, Dkt. No. 615. The opinion does not identify the surviving claim or describe the underlying merits of the parties’ dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.