Arellanes Jimenez v. G&J's Pizzeria LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-05454
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Arellanes Jimenez v. G&J’s Pizzeria, Judge Cronan granted Plaintiffs’ motion to correct the individual defendant’s name in the judgment.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs, G&J’s Pizzeria LLC, and Gregory Barrios by correcting the individual defendant’s name in the judgment and case caption; it does not change the damages described in the prior default judgment.
What happened
In Arellanes Jimenez v. G&J’s Pizzeria LLC, the court had entered a default judgment against the defendants, including an individual identified in the filings as “Gregorio Varios.” The plaintiffs asked the court to correct that name to “Gregory Barrios.”
The court found that the plaintiffs had sued and served the intended person but had used the wrong name. The filings connected the individual to G&J’s Pizzeria, used the company’s address, and identified names that were highly similar. The court also found that Gregory Barrios had received notice of the lawsuit and the motion to correct the judgment.
Judge John P. Cronan granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the judgment. The court directed the Clerk to replace “Gregorio Varios” with “Gregory Barrios” in the case caption and said it would enter a revised judgment.
The detailed version
- Arellanes Jimenez v. G&J's Pizzeria LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05454
- John Cronan
- Aug. 29, 2022
Background
On March 17, 2021, the Court entered a default judgment against G&J’s Pizzeria LLC and the individual defendant identified in the case filings as “Gregorio Varios.” The judgment awarded $263,471.38 in damages, plus $4,155.00 in attorneys’ fees, $437.80 in costs, and post-judgment interest, with the defendants responsible together and individually for the amounts awarded.
The plaintiffs later moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to correct the individual defendant’s name in the judgment. Rule 60(a) allows a court to correct a clerical mistake or an error caused by oversight or omission in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The plaintiffs said the correct name was “Gregory Barrios,” and represented that he had received notice of the action and had an opportunity to respond. No opposition was filed.
Court’s Analysis
The Court treated the request only as a motion to amend the judgment under Rule 60(a), rather than as a request to amend the case caption under Rule 15(a)(2), because judgment had already been entered.
The Court applied the rule allowing correction of a misnomer, meaning the mistaken labeling of the correct person rather than suing a different person. It considered three factors: whether the plaintiffs identified the defendant in several ways, whether the correct address appeared in the complaint, and how similar the mistaken and correct names were.
The Court found that all three factors supported correction. The amended complaint described the individual as an owner, manager, principal, or agent of G&J’s Pizzeria and as someone who handled employee wages, schedules, records, hiring, and firing. The complaint also identified the pizzeria’s address as 188 East 104th Street, New York, New York 10029. The Court noted that the names “Gregorio Varios” and “Gregory Barrios” were highly similar.
The Court further found that Gregory Barrios had notice of the lawsuit and the motion. The summons and amended complaint had been personally served on “Gregorio Varios” at the pizzeria’s address, and later case materials and the motion to amend had been served there as well.
Disposition
The Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the judgment. It stated that it would separately enter a revised judgment reflecting the name Gregory Barrios. The Clerk of Court was directed to replace “Gregorio Varios” with “Gregory Barrios” in the case caption and close the motion at Docket Number 54. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order on August 29, 2022.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.