United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff,
OILFIELD CNC MACHINING, L.L.C., and THOMAS CLEMENTS, Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AMENDED JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO CORRECT
MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.
This matter is before me following the plaintiff's Motion For Amended Judgment Under Rule 59(e) (docket no. 17) and Motion To Correct Under Rule 60(a) (docket no. 18)
First, as to plaintiff's motion under Rule 59(e), the plaintiff seeks an "amended judgment that recites the specific amounts awarded" in accordance with my decision to grant the plaintiff's default judgment on November 3, 2014. In an order filed on November 3, 2014, I set forth the two-step process governing the entry of a default and default judgment under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After applying and analyzing Rule 55(a) and (b), I "grant[ed] the plaintiff's default judgment and [found] the defendants [ ] liable for breaching their lease agreement with the plaintiff." However, I did not include the specific monetary award that I granted in the judgment or order.
Pursuant to the plaintiff's motion under Rule 59(e),  I am amending my judgment in accordance with relief that I previously granted on November 3, 2014. In doing so, I am rendering a specific monetary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, General Electric Capital Corporation (GECC), and against the defendants, Oilfield CNC Machining, LLC and Thomas Clements, jointly and severally, in the amount of $128, 647.59, plus interest from the date of entry of the judgment, until paid, at the rate of 7.82% per annum, which is the stated interest rate in the contract. I am also awarding attorney fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $3, 848.00, which includes the additional $1, 200.00 in attorney fees that I awarded on November 3, 2014.
Second, as to plaintiff's motion under Rule 60(a), the plaintiff seeks to correct a clerical or typographical error made by the plaintiff regarding the defendant's name. According to the plaintiff, "Upon filing of this action on July 16, 2014, a typographical error was made in the caption of the Complaint, wherein the name of the Defendant LLC was stated as Oilfield CN H Machining, LLC.'... The correct name of the Defendant, as identified on the parties' lease agreement attached to the Complaint, is Oilfield CN C Machining, LLC.'"
Pursuant to the plaintiff's motion under Rule 60,  I am replacing references made to "Oilfield CN H Machining, LLC" in the judgment with the proper name of the defendant, "Oilfield CN C Machining, LLC." See McNamara v. City of Chicago, 138 F.3d 1219, 1221 (7th Cir. 1998) (finding district court did not commit reversible error by correcting a typographical mistake where the district court replaced "Chicago Police Department" with "Chicago Fire Department" and because it "was the correction of a clerical error, it could be made by the district judge at any time.'") (citing to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a)). Although the mistake was made by the plaintiff in this case, a "clerical mistake" under Rule 60(a) is not confined to a mistake committed only by a clerk. See Pattiz v. Schwartz, 386 F.2d 300 (1968) (noting that a "clerical mistake" is not limited to a clerk, and suggesting that ...