United States District Court, D. Maryland
Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge
seven-day bench trial, this Court entered Judgment in favor
of the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Saffo Contractors, Inc.
("Saffo") on its claim of intentional
misrepresentation and on both parties' claims of unjust
enrichment. In its Memorandum Opinion, which contains this
Court's findings of facts and conclusions of law under
Rule 52(a), this Court ruled that Saffo sustained actual
damages of $200, 000 due to Klicos' intentional
misrepresentation (ECF No. 160 at 32), awarded punitive
damages of $50, 000 (id. at 33), and found that
Klicos was unjustly enriched in the amount of $8, 377.04
(id. at 39-40). In its Order and Judgment, this
Klicos intentionally misrepresented its intent to return to
the 395 Project in 2015, which caused Saffo to incur $200,
000 in actual damages. Punitive damages are warranted in the
amount of $50, 000.
Klicos retains $8, 377.04 in unjust enrichment based upon
Saffo's overpayment for the actual value to Saffo of
Klicos' work on the 395 Project. This amount incorporates
a deduction for a refund of $200, 000 fraudulently obtained
Klicos SHALL PAY to Saffo a total of $58, 377.04.
(ECF No. 161)
17, 2018, Saffo moved to alter, amend, or correct the
judgment under Rules 59(e)and 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (ECF No. 162.) Saffo specifically notes that the final
Order and Judgment fails to include the $200, 000 in actual
damages in the total monetary judgment amount. (W.)With the
appropriate adjustment, the total monetary judgment in
Saffo's favor should amount to $258, 377.04.
(Id.) Klicos responded on July 23, 2018 to state
that it "takes no position on Saffo's Motion as this
Court will amend, if necessary, its opinion to reflect the
Court's intended ruling." (ECF No. 163.)
Court finds under Rule 60(a) that Saffo's request to
amend the Order and Judgment in this case is well-founded.
Rule 60(a) provides that "[t]he 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(a). This rule
enables the Court "to perform mechanical adjustments to
judgments, such as correcting transcription errors and
miscalculations," and to correct a mistake" that
occurs "when there is an inconsistency between the text
of an order or judgment and the district court's intent
when it entered the order or judgment" Sartin v.
McNair Law Firm PA, 756 F.3d 259, 265-66 (4th Cix. 2014)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
undisputed that Saffo paid $200, 000 to Klicos on February
13, 2015. (ECF No. 160 at 23.) The Court expressly found that
"Klicos must return the $200, 000 as actual damages for
Saffo's intentional misrepresentation claim."
(Id. at 39.) During closing arguments, the parties
agreed that - if entitled to recover the $200, 000 - Saffo
may collect that amount under either its claim for
intentional misrepresentation or its claim for unjust
enrichment - but not both. (Tr. at 1201, 1232.)
this Court's Order and Judgment properly avoids
double recovery by Saffo, the Order and Judgment
inadvertently denies Saffo single recovery of the
$200, 000. Under its intentional misrepresentation claim,
Saffo is en tided to $200, 000 in actual damages and $50, 000
in punitive damages. When combined with the $8, 377.04 in
restitution for unjust enrichment, an amount based on a $200,
000 deduction to avoid double recovery by Saffo, the total
monetary judgment in Saffo's favor is $258, 377.04,
rather than the "$58, 377.04" indicated in the
prior rulings (ECF Nos. 160-61). Correcting this clerical
mistake will reflect the Court's original intent, as
contemplated by Rule 60(a).
it is this 23rd day of July, 2018, hereby ORDERED and
JUDGEMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED in favor of Saffo on its
intentional misrepresentation claim and on the parties'
competing claims of unjust enrichment.
a. Klicos intentionally misrepresented its intent to return
to the 395 Project in 2015, which caused Saffo to incur
$200, 000 in actual damages. Punitive
damages are warranted in the amount of $50,
b. Klicos retains $8, 377.04 in unjust
enrichment based upon Saffo's overpayment for the actual
value to Saffo of Klicos' work on the 395 Project. This
amount incorporates a deduction for a refund ...