TP Racing LLLP v. Unibet Arizona LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
TP Racing LLLP,
Petitioner,
v.
Unibet Arizona LLC,
Respondent.
No. CV-25-03170-PHX-MTL
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner TP Racing, LLLP’s Motion to Correct
Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, regarding judgment
entered on December 11, 2025 (Docs. 5, 6). (Doc. 19.) Respondent has not filed a response
to the Motion. For the reasons below, the Court will grant the Motion, and the judgment
will be amended to reflect the specificity of the confirmed arbitration award (Docs. 1-1, 5,
6).
I. BACKGROUND
On August 29, 2025, Petitioner TP Racing LLLP filed a petition in which it
“request[ed] that this Court confirm the ‘Award of Arbitrators’ as it was modified in the
‘Modification of Award of Arbitrators,’ and grant judgment in favor of TP in the amounts
awarded in the Arbitration” (Doc. 1 at 5). On December 11, 2025, the Court entered orders
as follows:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm
Arbitration Award (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.
Case 2:25-cv-03170-MTL Document 20 Filed 05/29/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment
accordingly and close this case.
(Id. at 2.) The Clerk of Court also entered judgment entitled “Judgment of Dismissal in a
Civil Case” stating:
Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The
issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court’s Order filed
December 11, 2025, Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is
granted, and the complaint and action are dismissed.
(Doc. 6.)
Petitioner filed a Motion for Supplemental Proceedings, requesting the Court’s
authorization to use discovery to obtain documents and information in aid of collection of
the arbitration award, including the issuance of a proposed subpoena. (Doc. 7.) The Court
granted the Motion and authorized issuance of the subpoena. (Doc. 8.) The subpoena was
served, and after receiving no communication from Respondent, Petitioner filed a Motion
for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Subpoena. (Doc. 10.) On May 4, 2026, the Court
found that the current judgment is unenforceable. (Doc. 18 at 7-9.) The Court quashed the
subpoena and indicated that it would consider the issue of the propriety of the subpoena if
and upon amendment of the judgment. (Id.)
Petitioner’s filed a Motion to Correct Judgment, which asks the Court to correct the
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). (Doc. 19.) The Motion
attempts to cure the defects identified in the Court’s prior Order (Doc. 18), namely by, in
its proposed form of amended judgment, identifying the prevailing party, stating a specific
monetary amount, identifying the party against whom judgment is rendering, and providing
a space for the Court to enter the appropriate interest rate. (Doc. 19-1.)
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) allows for corrections of clerical mistakes,
oversights, and omissions contained in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(a). The Ninth Circuit has “consistently interpreted Rule 60(a) to allow a
Case 2:25-cv-03170-MTL Document 20 Filed 05/29/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
district court to correct omissions so long as those corrections are limited to clarification
of matters intended to be implied or subsumed by the original judgment. Garamendi v.
Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2012). The district court may invoke Rule 60(a) to
“make a judgment reflect the actual intentions of the court, plus the necessary
implications,” including to facilitate enforcement of its judgment, resolve ambiguity, and
clarify its original intention. Id. at 1077-80 (“Rule 60(a) allows for clarification and
explanation, consistent with the intent of the original judgment, even in the absence of
ambiguity, if necessary for enforcement.”).
“A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, …[and] [t]he procedure …
must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute
governs to the extent it applies.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69. A judgment must be definite and
certain in its terms to be enforceable. See Bryan v. Nelson, 180 Ariz. 366, 368-69, 884
P.2d 252, 254-55 (Ct. App. 1994); McClanahan v. Hawkins, 90 Ariz. 139, 141-42, 367
P.2d 196, 197 (1961).
III. AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT
Petitioner’s Motion to Correct Judgment (Doc. 19) is unopposed, and in a proposed
form of amended judgment, Petitioner supplies the required detail to satisfy Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 69 (Doc. 19-1). Under the authority of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(a) and to ensure the Judgment’s clarity and accuracy as well as facilitate enforcement
of the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69, the Court will grant
Petitioner’s Motion to Correct Judgment (Doc. 19). The Court will direct the Clerk of Court
to enter an amended judgment to eliminate reference to dismissal and to specify the precise
total amount awarded in the confirmed arbitration award (Docs. 1-1, 5) in conformity with
Petitioner’s proposed form of amended judgment (Doc. 19-1).
The confirmed arbitration award in favor of Petitioner TP Racing LLLP against
Unibet Arizona LLC was for the following amounts, totaling $5,100,066.87: damages of
$4,887,252.00; attorneys’ fees of $99,212.50; expert witness fees of $77,140.57; and
administrative fees and expenses of American Arbitration Association of $36,461.80
(Doc. 1-1; see also Doc. 5). The Court will also award post-judgment interest as provided
Case 2:25-cv-03170-MTL Document 20 Filed 05/29/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that TP Racing, LLLP’s Motion to Correct
Judgment (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter an amended
judgment entitled “Judgment in a Civil Case” in favor of Petitioner TP Racing LLLP
against Unibet Arizona LLC in the amount of $5,100,066.87, plus post-judgment interest
as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1961 at a rate of 3.77 percent per annum, accruing from the date
of this Order until such amount is paid by Respondent.
Dated this 28th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-03170-MTL Document 20 Filed 05/29/26 Page 4 of 4