Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This case involved a dispute between minor plaintiffs (S.E., et al.) and defendants including Andrée Grey, likely a school district official.
The parties jointly moved to approve a minors’ compromise, vacate a preliminary injunction, and voluntarily dismiss the action.
On September 14, 2026, the Court granted that joint motion (Dkt.
No. 103).
The September 14 Order included a “Factual Background” section summarizing the case history.
On October 7, 2026, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Application (Dkt.
No. 104) seeking a limited modification of that Order.
They argued the “Factual Background” section recited Plaintiffs’ allegations as if they were uncontroverted facts, which had subsequently been repeated in national media reports as court-established facts, generating community controversy.
Plaintiffs opposed the application on October 19, 2026 (Dkt.
No. 105).
The Court construed Defendants’ application as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
The Court’s Holding
The Court denied Defendants’ Rule 59(e) motion, finding they failed to demonstrate the September 14 Order was “manifestly unjust” or that media controversy resulted from the Court’s recitation of facts.
However, the Court agreed sua sponte that the prior Order would have benefited from clarifying language indicating the “Factual Background” was drawn solely from Plaintiffs’ allegations, not adjudicated findings.
Exercising its authority under Rule 60(a) to correct clerical mistakes or oversights to reflect the Court’s original intent, the Court vacated the September 14, 2026 Order and ordered an Amended Order to be issued forthwith, amending only the first portion of the “Background” section on pages 1 and 2 of the original order.
Key Takeaways
- The Court denied Defendants’ Rule 59(e) motion because media reporting and community controversy did not render the original order ‘manifestly unjust.’
- The Court sua sponte invoked Rule 60(a) to vacate and amend its own September 14 Order to clarify that the ‘Factual Background’ section recited only Plaintiffs’ allegations.
- Rule 60(a) permits a court to correct an order to reflect its actual intent, even without a party’s motion, where the written order fails to capture what the court intended to record.
- The amendment is limited strictly to the ‘Background’ section; the substantive disposition—approving the compromise, vacating the injunction, and dismissing the action—remains unchanged.
- The case concludes with the voluntary dismissal of the action following approval of the minors’ compromise.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the distinction between Rule 59(e) motions, which require a high standard such as manifest injustice or clear error, and Rule 60(a), which allows a court to correct the record to match its original intent at any time.
The Court refused to punish itself for media misinterpretation of its procedural recitation of allegations but acknowledged the importance of precision in judicial orders to prevent allegations from being mistaken for findings of fact.
The sua sponte correction ensures the final judgment accurately reflects the procedural posture—that the facts were alleged, not proven—while preserving the settlement and dismissal the parties jointly requested.
The correction was narrow.
The court said the amended order would change only the first portion of the background section on pages one and two; it did not reopen the settlement terms or alter the approval, vacatur, and dismissal embodied in the earlier disposition.
The court directed that the replacement amended order issue immediately.