United States of America, et al v. Alisal Water Corp, et al, No. 5:1997cv20099 - Document 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 1000 MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/25/2019. THE JUNE 27, 2019 HEARING DATE IS VACATED. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2019)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 8 Case No. 5:97-cv-20099-EJD Plaintiff, 9 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES v. 10 ALISAL WATER CORP, et al., 11 Re: Dkt. No. 1000 United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 I. INTRODUCTION Interested party Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District (“PSMCSD”) is 14 15 presently before the court seeking an order correcting a “clerical mistake” pursuant to Federal 16 Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).1 PSMCSD asks the court to revise a March 4, 2008 order by Judge 17 Fogel approving the Bill of Sale effecting the transfer of certain water systems to PSMCSD. More 18 specifically, PSMCSD asks the court to revise the order so that it identifies two parcels included in 19 the Bill of Sale with sufficient detail to be acceptable to the Monterey County Office of the 20 Assessor (“Assessor’s Office”) for secured tax roll purposes. Dkt. No. 1000 (PSMCSD’s Motion 21 For Order Correcting Clerical Mistakes Or Mistakes Arising From Oversight Or Omission In 22 Order Approving Original Bill of Sale [Fed. R. Civ. P. 609a)] (hereinafter “Motion”)). Defendant 23 Alisal Water Corporation (“Alco”) and AWC Holdings Trusts oppose the motion.2 The County of 24 Monterey filed a statement of non-opposition. For the reasons discussed below, PSMCSD’s 25 26 27 28 PSMCSD’s accompanying request for judicial notice filed in support of its motion, which is unopposed, is granted. 2 Alco’s request for judicial notice, which is unopposed, is also granted. Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES 1 1 1 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 motion will be granted. II. BACKGROUND At the request of the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Attorney 4 General initiated this suit over a decade ago in 1997 against Alco, its president and sole 5 shareholder, Robert T. Adcock (“Adcock”), and others (collectively “Defendants”) for violating 6 the Safe Drinking Water Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. Judge Fogel found that 7 Defendants failed to meet the Maximum Contaminant Level (“MCL”) for microbiological 8 contaminants; failed to report or give public notice of the MCL failures; failed to do required 9 repeat and increased routine monitoring; failed to report the lack of monitoring; failed to retain 10 documents as required; and failed to test for lead and copper in their water in a timely manner. 11 Dkt. Nos. 143 (Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motions For Partial Summary Judgment), 248 (Order 12 Granting In Part And Denying In Part Plaintiff’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment; And 13 Denying Defendants’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment). Many of the violations found by 14 the court involved intentional false reporting or non-reporting. Dkt. No. 301 (Findings Of Fact 15 And Conclusions Of Law). The court conducted a bench trial for the purpose of determining an 16 appropriate remedy for the violations, and ordered, among other things, that a receivership be 17 created to take control of the eight water systems operated by Defendants and that the Receiver 18 assess the feasibility of selling seven of the eight water systems. Included among the water 19 systems placed into receivership were those owned by Moss Landing Water System, Inc. (“Moss 20 Landing”) and North Monterey County Water Systems, Inc. (“NORMCO”). Dkt. No. 301 21 (Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law). After Moss Landing and NORMCO were placed in 22 receivership, PSMCSD began management of the water systems and has continued to do so ever 23 since. Dkt. No. 1000-1 (Decl. of Don Rosa in Support of Motion). 24 On April 13, 2004, the court directed the court-appointed Receiver to sell the Moss 25 Landing and NORMCO water systems (and others) to PSMCSD. Dkt. No. 481-1 (Order 26 Regarding Sale Of Receivership Assets). In January of 2008, PSMCSD submitted to the court an 27 application for approval of a Bill of Sale for five water systems, including Moss Landing and 28 Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES 2 1 NORMCO. Dkt. No. 802-2 (Bill Of Sale). Voluminous Condition of Title reports from the 2 Chicago Title Insurance Company were attached to and incorporated by reference into the Bill of 3 Sale. Dkt. No. 802-2 at 1. Among the Condition of Title reports was one for NORMCO parcel 4 APN 125-151-006—one of the two parcels at issue. Dkt. No 802-12 at 25-31. The Condition of 5 Title report for the other parcel at issue, Moss Landing parcel APN 131-061-008, was 6 inadvertently omitted. The NORMCO and Moss Landing parcels are connected via pipes to the 7 NORMCO and Moss Landing water systems, respectively. Dkt. 100-1 at 3 (Decl. of Don Rosa in 8 Support of Motion). The only purpose and only use of the two parcels are to serve customers of 9 the two water systems. Id. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 On March 4, 2008, Judge Fogel issued an Order Resolving Pending Issues Re Receivership (“March 4, 2008 Order”) which included the following provisions relevant to the instant motion: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1) Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District (“PSMCSD”) seeks final Court approval of the Bill of Sale for five small water systems in North Monterey County, termination of the existing Management Agreements, and release of all claims. Pursuant to this Court’s Order dated April 13, 2004, PSMCSD was designated as the purchaser of the assets of the Moss Landing Water System, Inc., North Monterey County Water System, Inc. (“NORMCO”), Blackie Road Mutual Water System #18, Vierra Canyon Water System, and Langley/Valle Pacifico Water. System. On or about January 12, 2005, PSMCSD entered into “Operational and Management Agreements” with the Receiver for the five systems. In June, 2007, at the Court’s direction, PSMCSD engaged the Chicago Title Company to complete title research and production of title documents, easement descriptions, and maps and the Bill of Sale to complete the transfer of the five systems. The Court hereby authorizes and confirms the sale of the five systems to PSMCSD and directs the Receiver to execute and deliver the Bill of Sale that has been presented to the Court. * * * 11) The Receivership shall remain in effect with respect to the San Jerardo water system only. . . . 25 26 Dkt. No. 824. PSMCSD submitted the Bill of Sale to the Monterey County Recorder’s Office 27 (“Recorder’s Office”) on April 11, 2008. Dkt. No. 825. The Recorder’s Office, however, did not 28 Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES 3 1 record the transfer of Moss Landing parcel APN 131-061-008 from Alco to PSMCSD presumably 2 because the Condition of Title report for that particular parcel had been inadvertently omitted from 3 the Bill of Sale. Dkt. No. 100 at 4 (PSMCSD’s Motion). The Recorder’s Office also did not 4 record the transfer of NORMCO parcel APN 125-151-006 even though the Condition of Title 5 report for this parcel was attached to the Bill of Sale. Id. (citing Dkt. No. 802-12). The transfer of 6 the NORMCO parcel was not recorded because the Bill of Sale did not include a “metes-and- 7 bounds” description for that parcel. Dkt. No. 1005 at 4 (Opp’n of Alisal Water Corporation And 8 The AWC Holdings Trusts To Motion); see also Dkt. No. 1008 at 6 (PSMCSD’s Reply). United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Even though Judge Fogel, the Receiver, Alco, and PSMCSD all understood that the Moss 10 Landing and NORMCO water systems were to be sold and transferred to PSMCSD and the Bill of 11 Sale had been recorded, the Assessor’s Office continued sending tax notices and demands for 12 payment to Alco for the two parcels at issue. Dkt. No. 1006 at 3. The tax bills were dated 13 November 19, 2008, October 15, 2009, June 22, 2010, November 23, 2010, August 10, 2011, 14 February 15, 2011 and February 16, 2011. Id. Alco forwarded these tax notices to PSMCSD and 15 asked PSMCSD to pay the bills and to take the necessary action to change ownership of the two 16 parcels to PSMCSD. Id. at 6-64. Alco copied the Monterey County Treasurer-Tax Collector on 17 all but one of the letters to PSMCSD. Id. 18 On February 23, 2009, the Assessor’s Office sent PSMCSD a letter explaining that the 19 two parcels at issue “do not appear to be described” in the recorded Bill of Sale, and therefore the 20 Assessor’s Office “cannot change the ownership until a document describing the subject properties 21 is recorded.” Id. at 65. On October 23, 2008, the Assessor’s Office wrote to PSMCSD again 22 reiterating that the Bill of Sale did not describe the properties at issue, and therefore the Office of 23 the Assessor’s records would continue to reflect that one of Alco’s trusts, AWC II Holdings LLC, 24 was the owner of record. Id. at 66. The Assessor’s Office also sent Alco a letter stating that the 25 parcels at issue were “referenced” in the April 11, 2008 Bill of Sale but not “described.” Id. at 68. 26 Therefore, the Assessor’s Office did not change ownership of the parcels in its records. Id. The 27 Assessor’s Office asked Adcock to contact PSMCSD or a title company to prepare and record the 28 Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES 4 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 necessary conveyance documents to enable the Assessor’s Office “to finally remove [Alco] from 2 title and reflect [PSMCSD] as the new owner of record as intended with the recording of the Bill 3 of Sale.” Id. 4 Apparently, no action was taken to address the Assessor’s Office issue for approximately 5 four years. During that time, Alco continued to receive, but did not pay, the tax bills for the two 6 parcels at issue. Eventually the Receiver’s attorney had the Receiver execute an Addendum to Bill 7 of Sale on August 15, 2012, which included as attachments the inadvertently omitted legal 8 description of the Moss Landing parcel and the same legal description of the NORMCO parcel 9 that had been attached to the Bill of Sale. Dkt. No. 1000 at 5 (PSMCSD’s Motion). The 10 Receiver’s attorneys filed a Notice of Receiver’s Execution of Addendum to Bill of Sale on 11 August 23, 2012, and served the Notice on Alco’s counsel, the Deputy County Counsel, and 12 others. Dkt. No. 980. The Recorder’s Office recorded the Addendum to Bill of Sale on 13 September 19, 2012. Dkt. No. 1001-1 at 25. On August 12, 2013, Judge Fogel issued an Order 14 Discharging Receiver And Terminating Proceedings. Dkt. No. 995. 15 A couple of years later, in approximately June 2015, the Monterey County Treasurer-Tax 16 Collector caused its agent, Bid-4-Assets, to conduct an internet auction to sell the two parcels at 17 issue in order to satisfy the delinquent taxes assessed against Alco. Dkt. No. 1005 at 6-7 (Alco’s 18 Opp’n). A third-party bidder purportedly purchased both parcels. Id. at 7. The purported sale of 19 the parcels resulted in excess tax sales proceeds of approximately $32,000 and has led to two state 20 court actions. First, two of Alco’s trusts have filed an action against the County of Monterey 21 seeking recovery of the excess tax sales proceeds. Dkt. No. 1007 at 4-16 (AWC Holding Trust v. 22 County of Monterey et al., No. 18cv1746). Second, the alleged purchaser of the two parcels at 23 issue has filed a quiet title action against PSMCSD. Dkt. No. 1007 at 17-22 (Pacheco v. 24 PSMCSD, No. 18cv1728). 25 Now that the two parcels at issue are the subject of the state court actions, PSMCSD finally 26 seeks an order correcting the “clerical mistakes” in the March 4, 2008 Order approving the 27 original Bill of Sale. Specifically, PSMCSD requests that the March 4, 2008 Order be amended so 28 Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES 5 1 that the sentence, “The Court hereby authorizes and confirms the sale of the five systems to 2 PSMCSD and directs the Receiver to execute and deliver the Bill of Sale that has been presented 3 to the Court,” is modified to read, “The Court hereby authorizes and confirms the sale of the five 4 systems to PSMCSD and directs the Receiver to execute and deliver the Bill of Sale that has been 5 presented to the Court as modified by the Addendum to Bill of Sale, including attachments A and 6 B thereto, executed by the Receiver on August 15, 2012, and recorded in the Office of the 7 Monterey County Recorder on September 19, 2002.” Dkt. No. 1000 at 9 (PSMCSD’s Motion). 8 III. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides, in relevant part: “The court may correct a 9 United States District Court Northern District of California STANDARDS 10 clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a 11 judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or 12 without notice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). A district court’s jurisdiction to enter an order nunc pro 13 tunc under Rule 60(a) “is limited to making the record reflect what the court actually intended to 14 do at an earlier date, but which it did not sufficiently express or accomplish due to some error or 15 inadvertence.” Nisenan Tribe of the Nev. City Rancheria v. Jewell, 650 Fed. Appx. 497, 499 (9th 16 Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2000)). What the 17 district court intended to do may be determined by looking to the circumstances surrounding the 18 original order and also to the court’s subsequent statements of its original intent, providing that the 19 record gives no reason to doubt such statements. Guenther v. United States, 44 Fed. Appx. 149, 20 150 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no time limit for bringing a motion under Rule 60(a). Jones & 21 Guerrero Co. v. Sealift Pac., 650 F.2d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 1981). 22 IV. DISCUSSION 23 As an initial matter, the court need not consider Alco’s opposition to PSMCSD’s motion 24 because it is untimely, having been filed one day after the deadline set forth in the court’s Order 25 Setting Briefing Schedule For Interested Party’s Motion For Order Correcting Clerical Mistakes 26 (Dkt. No. 1003). Nevertheless, the court will address the merits of PSMCSD’s motion because of 27 the significant issues it raises and to assist in the efficient and just resolution of the pending state 28 Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES 6 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 court actions. 2 A. 3 Alco argues that PSMCSD lacks standing to bring the instant motion because PSMCSD is Standing 4 not a named party to the action. The argument is without merit. First, Rule 60(a) makes no 5 reference to the movant’s status, whether it be party or non-party, and instead recites that the court 6 may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is 7 found in a judgment or order. In this regard, Rule 60(a) is distinguishable from Rule 60(b), which, 8 by its terms affords relief only to “parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (providing that “the court may 9 relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. . . .). 10 Second, PSMCSD has constitutional standing because it is named in the March 4, 2008 Order and 11 the Bill of Sale and asserts that it will be adversely affected by the “clerical error” in the March 4, 12 2008 Order if it is not corrected. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) 13 (stating that the irreducible constitutional minimum for standing requires party to have suffered an 14 injury-in-fact which is (a) “concrete and particularized,” (b) “actual or imminent, not conjectural 15 or hypothetical,” and (c) likely to be redressed by a favorable decision). 16 B. 17 Alco contends that the errors PSMCSD seeks to correct are not clerical mistakes, but errors Applicability of Rule 60(a) re Clerical Mistake 18 subject to the one year or “reasonable time” limitations period set forth in Rule 60(b). Again, 19 Alco’s argument is unpersuasive. The record shows that Judge Fogel intended to order the 20 transfer of all assets of the five water systems to PSMCSD, which included the two parcels at 21 issue, and PSMCSD’s proposed correction will “mak[e] the record reflect what the court actually 22 intended to do at an earlier date, but which it did not sufficiently express or accomplish due to 23 some error or inadvertence.” Nisenan Tribe v. Jewell, 650 Fed. Appx. at 499. Alco understood 24 Judge Fogel’s intent and indeed told PSMCSD in several letters that PSMCSD was responsible for 25 the tax bills for the two parcels at issue because the parcels “belong” to PSMCSD. Dkt. No. 1006 26 at 6, 14, 19, 28, 33, 48, 58. 27 28 The errors PSMCSD seeks to correct are clerical in nature. The Bill of Sale included the Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES 7 1 Condition of Title report for NORMCO parcel APN 125-151-006, but should have also included 2 (according to the Assessor’s Office) a metes and bounds description of the parcel. The Condition 3 of Title report for the Moss Landing parcel APN 131-061-008 was inadvertently omitted. Clerical 4 mistakes of omission and inadequate property description are the types of error that a court is 5 authorized to correct under FRCP 60(a). Harwick v. United States, No. 79-1710 JF, 2014 WL 6 1006576, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2014), aff’d sub nom, Nisenan Tribe of the Nev. City 7 Rancheria v. Jewell, 650 F. Appx. 497 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying Rule 60(a) to correct a 8 Stipulation For Entry Of Judgment that inadvertently failed to mention a rancheria); see also 9 Cunningham v. Frymire, 180 Cal. App. 2d 891, 893-94 (1960) (affirming trial court’s order United States District Court Northern District of California 10 granting motion to amend order to insert inadvertently omitted description of a home). 11 Alco contends no error was made by the Title Company, Judge Fogel, or the Receiver 12 because the Bill of Sale accurately described the parcels at issue by APNs. Nevertheless, it is 13 clear with the benefit of hindsight that the Bill of Sale and the Condition of Title reports were 14 insufficient to carry out Judge Fogel’s intent. The March 4, 2008 Order expressed Judge Fogel’s 15 intent to authorize and confirm the sale of the Moss Landing and NORCO water systems to 16 PSMCSD. The Judge’s intent was not carried out; the two parcels at issue were purportedly sold 17 without PSMCSD’s authorization. 18 Alco next argues that PSMCSD should not be able to seek relief under Rule 60(a) because 19 the only error here is PSMCSD’s “persistent and intransigent failure to take the steps to file a Bill 20 of Sale or Deed with actual [l]egal description while it had the opportunity and knowledge to 21 easily do so.” Dkt. No. 1005 at 10 (Alco’s Opp’n). Alco’s argument is unpersuasive. The issue 22 is whether the March 4, 2008 order contains a clerical error that requires correcting under Rule 23 60(a). In each of the cases relied upon by Alco, the court denied Rule 60(a) relief because there 24 was no clerical error. 3 For example, in Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 592 F.2d 39 (2nd Cir. 25 1979), plaintiffs filed a Rule 60(a) motion seeking to add prejudgment interest to a judgment 26 27 28 James Blackstone Memorial Ass’n v. Gulf, M.&O. R. Co., 28 F.R.D. 385 (D. Conn. 1961); Ferraro v. Arthur M. Rosenberg Co. of New Haven, 156 F.2d 212, 214 (2nd Cir. 1946). Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES 8 3 1 entered in their favor. The court denied the motion, reasoning that (a) the judgment accurately 2 reflected the jury’s verdict, (b) the plaintiffs had not requested prejudgment interest in their 3 complaint or during the course of trial, and (c) that it was plaintiffs’ failure to bring their statutory 4 entitlement to prejudgment interest to the attention of the court in a timely manner that “created 5 their problem, not any clerical oversight or error.” Id. at 42. Unlike Lee, the March 4, 2008 Order 6 contains a clerical error not of PSMCSD’s making. At most, PSMCSD’s actions or inactions may 7 have exacerbated the effects of the clerical errors, and Lee does not foreclose PSMCSD from 8 seeking relief to correct the clerical errors. United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Citing Matter of West Texas Mktg. Corp., 12 F.3d 497, 504-505 (5th Cir. 1994), Alco 10 further contends that the errors PSMCSD now seeks to correct are not merely clerical errors, but 11 rather errors requiring “substantive judicial intrusion to amend or correct” that are beyond the 12 scope of Rule 60(a). Dkt. No. 1005 at 11 (Alco’s Opp’n). The West Texas Mktg. case supports 13 PSMCSD’s position, not Alco’s. In West Texas Mktg., the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 14 instructed as follows regarding applicability of Rule 60(a): 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 whether the change affects substantive rights of the parties and is therefore beyond the scope of Rule 60(a) or is instead a clerical error, a copying or computational mistake, which is correctable under the Rule. As long as the intentions of the parties are clearly defined and all the court need do is employ the judicial eraser to obliterate a mechanical or mathematical mistake, the modification will be allowed. If, on the other hand, cerebration or research into the law or planetary excursions into facts is required, Rule 60(a) will not be available to salvage the government's blunders. Let it be clearly understood that Rule 60(a) is not a perpetual right to apply different legal rules or different factual analyses to a case. It is only mindless and mechanistic mistakes, minor shifting of facts, and no new additional legal perambulations which are reachable through Rule 60(a). 23 Id. As previously discussed, the intent of the Receiver, PSMCSD and Judge Fogel in the instant 24 action was clearly defined in the March 4, 2008 Order: to effectuate the sale of the Moss Landing, 25 NORMCO and three other water systems to PSMCSD. PSMCSD’s proposed correction will 26 ensure that this intent is carried out. No “new additional legal perambulations” are required to 27 determine the intent of the Receiver, PSMCSD and Judge Fogel. 28 Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES 9 1 2 “new legal perambulations” in the underlying state court proceedings. Alco anticipates that the 3 proposed correction will lead to issues regarding standing, intervention, the propriety of the tax 4 sales, disposition of the delinquent tax sale revenues, and the disposition of the excess tax swales 5 proceeds generated by the tax sales. These are issues that the state court is capable of resolving 6 should they arise; they have no bearing on whether the March 4, 2008 Order has clerical errors 7 requiring correction under Rule 60(a). 8 Because PSMCSD is seeking relief from a clerical error and such relief is properly sought 9 under Rule 60(a) and not 60(b), PSMCSD’s motion is not subject to the time limitations set forth 10 United States District Court Northern District of California Alco nevertheless points out that implementing the proposed correction is likely to lead to in Rule 60(b). Receiver’s Authority to Execute 11 C. 12 Alco contends that Judge Fogel terminated the Receiver’s authorities and duties over the 13 parcels at issue when he issued the March 4, 2008 Order, and therefore the Receiver exceeded his 14 court-appointed authorization when he executed the Addendum to Bill of Sale years later on 15 August 15, 2012. The court disagrees. Judge Fogel did not discharge the Receiver in the March 16 4, 2008 Order. Instead, he narrowed the scope of the Receiver’s duties because he reasonably 17 believed that the Receiver’s duties regarding the parcels at issue had been fulfilled. It was 18 unforeseeable (and beyond comprehension), that the County of Monterey would refuse to record 19 the transfer of title to all parcels comprising the Moss Landing and NORMCO water systems and 20 would later authorize the sale of those parcels. Judge Fogel ordered the transfer, based upon 21 evidence that Alco had repeatedly and intentionally violated the Clean Water Act Safe Drinking 22 Water Act, to help ensure a clean drinking water supply for Monterey County’s own residents. 23 When the Count of Monterey refused to record the transfer of title to all parcels, it was well within 24 Receiver’s authority to complete what amounted to a purely administrative function in order to 25 implement the court’s March 4, 2008 Order. Alco’s Request to Defer/Delay Ruling 26 D. 27 Alco accuses PSMCSD of using the proceedings in this court to obtain “evidence” it can 28 Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES 10 1 use in the state court quiet title action. To prevent this from happening, Alco suggests that the 2 court dismiss PSMCSD’s motion or defer ruling on the present motion until the quiet tile action is 3 resolved. The court declines to do so. This case was initiated in 1997 and litigated for over a 4 decade. The court is not interested in any further delays. United States District Court Northern District of California 5 V. CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons set forth above, PSMCSD’s motion is GRANTED. The March 4, 2008 7 Order is hereby amended nunc pro tunc so that the sentence, “The Court hereby authorizes and 8 confirms the sale of the five systems to PSMCSD and directs the Receiver to execute and deliver 9 the Bill of Sale that has been presented to the Court,” is modified to read, “The Court hereby 10 authorizes and confirms the sale of the five systems to PSMCSD and directs the Receiver to 11 execute and deliver the Bill of Sale that has been presented to the Court as modified by the 12 Addendum to Bill of Sale, including attachments A and B thereto, executed by the Receiver on 13 August 15, 2012, and recorded in the Office of the Monterey County Recorder on September 19, 14 2002.” 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 25, 2019 17 18 19 ______________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:97-cv-20099-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL MISTAKES 11
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
