ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CORRECT DOCKET
Re: Dkt. No. 107
JOSEPH C. SPERO, Magistrate Judge.
Defendants Johns and Johns & Allyn bring a Motion to Correct the Docket and Dismiss the Action With Prejudice ("Motion"). Defendants contend a docket entry for an Order of the Ninth Circuit that was filed in this case (Docket No. 106) is confusing and incorrect to the extent it appears to reflect that the underlying document is the mandate of the Ninth Circuit (which the parties agree it is not). Therefore, Defendants assert, the Court should remove the document and corresponding docket entry from the docket of this case. The Court DENIES the Motion, which has no merit, and vacates the hearing set for August 25, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
On December 29, 2015, the undersigned entered an amended judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in this action. Defendants appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit, which assigned the appeal Case No. 16-15134. On June 7, 2017, the Ninth Circuit filed a "Memorandum" ("the June 7 Memorandum") in that case and provided this Court with a copy of the June 7 Memorandum. As is the Court's regular practice as to all Orders filed by the Ninth Circuit in this Court's cases that are on appeal, the Clerk filed the June 7 Memorandum in this case. See Docket No. 106.
The Clerk's filing of the Ninth Circuit's Order in this case has no legal significance; it simply reflects action taken by the Ninth Circuit on the appeal. Further, the docket entry for the June 7 Memorandum accurately reflects the nature of that document, describing it as "USCA Memorandum as to 71 Notice of Appeal." The docket entry does not describe the Memorandum as a "Mandate." Therefore, there is nothing incorrect in this Court's docket that requires correction. The Court also notes that when the Ninth Circuit did issue its mandate, that document was provided to this Court as well and it was duly filed as Docket No. 109 ("USCA ORDER AND MANDATE"). Contrary to the speculation of Defendants, the Clerk filed the "Order and Mandate" not because it "recognized [its] mistake," see Reply at 4, but because it is the Court's practice to file all Orders it receives from the Ninth Circuit in cases pending on appeal, as noted above.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion.