United States District Court, District of Columbia
In the Matter of the Arbitration of Certain Controversies between SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, and THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC, Respondent.
Kessler United States District Judge.
September 22, 2016, the Greek Supreme Court ruled in favor of
Leidos in this long-running litigation. On December 2, 2016,
the Court Ordered the Parties to submit their positions as to
what, if anything, this Court should do given the fact that
the Greek Supreme Court had reached a final decision [Dkt.
No. 49]. On December 16, 2016, Petitioner submitted a
Position Brief as to the Impact on Its Arbitration Award
Enforcement Petition of Supreme Court of the Hellenic
Republic's Decision [Dkt. No. 51 ]. On the same date,
Respondent submitted its Position Statement that this Court
should deny the Petitioner's request for enforcement of
the decision of the Greek j Supreme Court [Dkt. No. 52].
January 5, 2017, this Court issued an Order [Dkt. No. 53] and
Memorandum Opinion [Dkt. No. 54]. The Order confirms the
Arbitral Award of the International Chamber of Commerce
International Court of Arbitration ("ICC") issued
in favor of Petitioner, Leidos, Inc. (formerly Science
Applications International Corporation) and against the
Hellenic Republic. On January 6, 2017, the Clerk of Court
issued a Civil Judgment Form AO 450 [Dkt. No. 55], pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, to enter Judgment in the action, based on
the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order.
now seeks, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a) and/or 59(e) to
correct the "clerical mistake" or "mistakes
arising from oversight or omission" in the entry of
Judgment prepared by the Clerk of Court and entered on the
docket on January 6, 2017 [Dkt. No. 56]. Specifically, Leidos
now requests that the entry of Judgment be corrected to add
the following relief which the Court granted Leidos when it
decided to confirm the award in its entirety.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR RELIEF
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides that "the Court
may correct a clerical mistake or mistakes arising from
oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment,
order, or other part of the record." A judgment can be
corrected so that it conforms to the "contemporaneous
intent of the Court." Jackson v. Jackson. 276
F.2d 501, 502 (D.C. Cir. 1960).
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits relief for reasons set
forth in (b)(1)-(5), and - most importantly ~ ending with
60(b)(6) for "any other reason that justifies
59(e) is appropriate where the district court finds that
there is a "need to correct a clear error or prevent
LEIDOS HAS NOT WAIVED THE RELIEF IT SEEKS
argues at great length that Leidos has waived its claims as
to: 1) its request to have the judgment stated in dollars
rather than Euros; and 2) its request for pre-judgment
interest at 6% and post-judgment statutory interest on the $
162, 500 that was awarded as costs. Respondent is correct
that Leidos expressly asked, at a much earlier point in this
long-running litigation, that the amount of Judgment (other
than the amount awarded as costs) be stated in Euros.
However, the fact that Leidos asked for the Judgment to be
stated in Euros at that time does not decide the issue at
this late date.
request to have the foreign currency amount of the judgment
converted into U.S. dollars was not waived. Rule 59(e)
clearly says that it may not be used by a "losing
party... to raise new issues that could have been raised
previously." Kattan By Thomas v. D.C.. 995 F.2d
274, 276 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (emphasis added). Given the fact
that Leidos is not a losing party, it is not precluded from