1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SAMUEL LOVE, Case No. 3:18-cv-01299-WHO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 9 v. PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED JUDGMENT 10 ELIAS JWEINAT, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 35 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Samuel Love filed an ex parte application for entry of a judgment the parties 14 stipulated to as part of the agreement that settled in this case. Dkt. No. 35. He asserts that the 15 defendants have defaulted on payments under the settlement agreement and asks that I enter 16 judgment in the amount of $13,513.74. 17 I lack jurisdiction to grant the request. Although the parties decided among themselves 18 that I would retain jurisdiction over their settlement and further agreed that the plaintiff would be 19 able to file a stipulated judgment in the event of an uncured default, they never communicated that 20 wish to me. Accordingly, the order dismissing the case is silent with respect to jurisdiction. Dkt. 21 No. 33. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) permits a district court to “correct a clerical 22 mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, 23 order, or other part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). “But Rule 60(a) does not permit a court 24 to make corrections that, under the guise of mere clarification, reflect a new and subsequent 25 intent.” Kang v. Harrison,

, 68 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and 26 citation omitted). 27 The change the plaintiff seeks here would do more than correct a clerical error or other 1 agreement. See, e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(1). 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: July 21, 2020 4 . 5 1iam H. Orrick 6 United States District Judge 4 8 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16 & = 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28