USA, et al v. Feinstein Family, et al, No. 2:1996cv00232 - Document 298 (M.D. Fla. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 289 Motion for order directing Clerk to enter judgment; denying 295 Motion for Hearing. The Clerk shall enter judgment nunc pro tunc to the August 17, 1999 252 Order. The motion is otherwise denied. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/21/2016. (RKR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
USA, et al v. Feinstein Family, et al Doc. 298 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ANGLO-AMERICAN FINANCIAL, collectively referred to as the Kennedy Funding Group, Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 2:96-cv-232-FtM-29 FEINSTEIN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, a Florida general partnership, BRIAN FEINSTEIN, individually and as partners doing business as Feinstein Family Partnership, MARK FEINSTEIN, individually and as partners doing business as Feinstein Family Partnership, ERIC FEINSTEIN, individually and as partners doing business as Feinstein Family Partnership, DEBORAH FEINSTEIN KOROGLU, individually and as partners doing business as Feinstein Family Partnership, COLONIAL PROPERTIES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, INC., a Florida corporation, COLONIAL PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida Corporation, MICHAEL STEVENS, and CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL, SMITH & CUTLER, P.A., Defendants. Dockets.Justia.com OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Order Directing Clerk to Enter Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 (Doc. #289) filed on September 30, 2016. Defendants filed a response in opposition and request a hearing on the matter. The (Docs. #294; #295.) United States defendants in June 1996. and found the commenced this action against the The Court conducted a trial on the merits defendants jointly and severally liable for violations of sections 301 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1344. Defendants were ordered to pay a penalty of $400,000 to the United States Treasury. (Doc. #207, p. 28.) On August 17, 1999, the Court further clarified that final judgment was granted in favor of the Government and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment accordingly pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. #252.) Upon review of the docket it appears the Clerk did not enter the final judgment as directed by the Court’s Order. Plaintiff now seeks an order directing the Clerk to enter final judgment nunc pro tunc so that it may enforce the judgment that was rendered in the Court’s August 17, 1999 Order. - 2 - Plaintiff further seeks an order directing defendants to pay the $400,000 penalty immediately. Defendants agree that the Court should instruct the Clerk to enter a final judgment but object to the order applying nunc pro tunc. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require “[e]very judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. However, in Bankers Trust Company v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (1978), the Supreme Court noted that the purpose of the separate-document requirement was to clarify when the time for appeal begins. Id. at 384–85. “The need for certainty as to the timeliness of an appeal, however, should not prevent the parties from waiving the separate-judgment requirement where one has accidentally not been entered.” Id. at 386. Here, the Court clearly evidenced its intent that the August 17, 1999 Order (Doc. #252) represent the final decision in the case. Although the Clerk of Court failed to enter final judgment in a separate document, such error does not render the Court’s judgment unenforceable. In addition, neither party has challenged the enforceability of the Court’s Order in the last seventeen years. Therefore, the Court finds under the circumstances of this case, the parties should be deemed to have waived the separate- - 3 - judgment requirement of Rule 58. Id. at 388; see also Reynolds v. Golden Corral Corp., 213 F.3d 1344, 1346 (11th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, the Court finds that the error of the Clerk may be corrected pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part the “court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Under this rule, a district court may “correct clerical errors to reflect what was intended at the time of ruling,” but “errors that affect substantial rights of the parties . . . are beyond the scope of rule 60(a).” (citations Weeks v. Jones, 100 F.3d 124, 128 (11th Cir. 1996) omitted). As discussed above, the Court clearly intended that the August 17, 1999 Order (Doc. #252) serve as the final decision in this case. The Court will, therefore, grant plaintiff’s motion for a nunc pro tunc order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Directing Clerk to Enter Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 (Doc. #289) is GRANTED to the extent set forth herein and otherwise DENIED. 2. Defendants’ Request for Hearing (Doc. #295) is DENIED. - 4 - 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment nunc pro tunc. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this of December, 2016. Copies: Counsel of Record - 5 - 21st day
]]>
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.
