RONALD DIBLE; MEGAN DIBLE, husband and wife v. City of Chandler, a municipality in the State of Arizona

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD DIBLE; MEGAN DIBLE,
husband and wife,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CITY OF CHANDLER, a municipality in
the State of Arizona; CHANDLER
POLICE DEPARTMENT, a law
enforcement agency of the City of
Chandler; BOBBY JOE HARRIS,
Chandler Police Chief and husband; JUDY
HARRIS, wife,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16548
D.C. No. 2:03-cv-00249-JAT
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2009 **
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JAN 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
In Appellant Ronald Dible’s and Appellant Megan Dible’s prior appeal to
this court, we held the district court abused its discretion when it imposed
sanctions on the Dibles pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, because “Rule 11 does not provide for the imposition of sanctions upon
the clients for the sins of their attorney.” Dible v. City of Chandler, 242 Fed.
App’x 473, 474 (9th Cir. 2007). After our mandate issued in that appeal, the
district court granted Appellees’ Rule 60(a) motion to correct a clerical mistake in
the judgment and ordered the clerk of the court to vacate its prior judgment and
enter an amended judgment imposing the Rule 11 sanctions against the Dibles’
counsel. The Dibles now appeal the district court’s order granting Appellees’ Rule
60(a) motion. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the
motion, we affirm.
The record clearly reflects the district court originally intended to impose the
Rule 11 sanctions against the Dibles’ counsel and not against the Dibles
personally. The district court stated in its July 8, 2005, order that it was imposing
the sanctions “against Plaintiffs’ counsel” and set forth in detail counsel’s conduct
that supported the sanction award. Therefore, the district court’s subsequent
mistake in its February 13, 2006, order directing the clerk of the court to enter
judgment on the sanction award “against Plaintiffs” was the type of “clerical

-- 2 of 3 --

3
mistake” correctable under Rule 60(a). See Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574,
1577 (9th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --