Case 1:16-cv-06280-PAE-KNF Document 107 Filed 08/06/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`CCR INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-v-
`
`
`ELIAS GROUP, LLC, et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`ELIAS GROUP, LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
` -v-
`
`CCR DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15 Civ. 6563 (PAE)
`
`
`
`
`16 Civ. 6280 (PAE)
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`The Court has received the August 2, 2021 motion of CCR International (“CCR”) to
`
`amend its judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). Dkt. 268 (“CCR Mot.”).
`
`CCR seeks $150,000 from the Elias Group, LLC (“Elias”) and any other appropriate relief. Id. at
`
`3. On August 3, 2021, the Court direct Elias to respond to CCR’s motion. Dkt. 269. Elias
`
`opposed CCR’s motion. Dkt. 271 (“Elias Opp’n”). For the following reasons, the Court denies
`
`CCR’s motion.
`
`On December 22, 2020, this Court issued an opinion and order granting Elias’s motion
`
`for summary judgment in full and denying the motion of CCR, CCR Development Group, Inc.
`
`(“CCRDG”), and José Fuertes (“Fuertes,” and, together with CCR and CCRDG, the “CCR
`
`Parties”) for summary judgment in full. Dkt. 251. In so holding, the Court found that Elias had
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-06280-PAE-KNF Document 107 Filed 08/06/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`met its contractual obligations to the CCR Parties, and found that Elias did not owe either CCR
`
`another $8.5 million nor Fuertes an annual salary of $180,000. Id. at 1. On April 5, 2021, the
`
`Court issued an opinion and order granting the motion for summary judgment by Elias,
`
`dismissing the CCR Parties “sole remaining claim, for the breach of the implied covenant of
`
`good faith and fair dealing.” Dkt. 260 at 12. Thereafter, on April 13, 2021, Elias voluntarily
`
`dismissed all of its counterclaims and this case was closed. Dkt. 265. On May 4, 2021, CCR
`
`and CCRDG filed a notice of appeal. Dkt. 267. CCR’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal
`
`was granted on August 4, 2021. Dkt. 270.
`
`Rule 60(a) permits a court to “correct a clerical error 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). Rule 60(a) provides relief when “the judgment simply has not accurately reflected
`
`the way in which the rights and obligations of the parties have in fact been adjudicated.” In re
`
`Frigitemp Corp., 781 F.2d 324, 327 (2d Cir. 1986).
`
`Rule 60(a) cannot provide such relief here. In this motion, CCR quotes factual findings
`
`from the Court’s December 22, 2020 Order: that Elias originally had to make an initial payment
`
`of $300,000, but that Elias had only paid a total of $150,000 toward that initial payment. CCR
`
`Mot. at 1. CCR argues that “[t]his Court did not reject the payment of the $150,000, so CCR
`
`International understands that the failure to order Elias to pay the outstanding amount was an
`
`‘oversight or omission.’” Id. at 2. But CCR has failed to point to anywhere that it sought relief
`
`on the claim that Elias owed it $150,000, or any order in which the Court awarded it relief on
`
`that claim. See Elias Opp’n, 1 (“At no point in the pleadings or other filings did plaintiff allege
`
`that defendant owed it any portion of the initial payment of $300,000.00.”). And Rule 60(a)
`
`cannot be used for the purpose of making new substantive rulings; it “permits only a correction
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-06280-PAE-KNF Document 107 Filed 08/06/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`for the purpose of reflecting accurately a decision that the court actually made.” Truskoski v.
`
`ESPN, Inc., 60 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir. 1995). CCR’s Rule 60(a) motion is therefore denied.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 6, 2021
`New York, New York
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`PAUL A. ENGELMAYER
`
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`3
`
`