22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4d8,MEMORANDUM Defendant Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co. appeals the district court’s Rule 60(a) order clarifying a judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). We affirm. It was appropriate for the district court to issue the order under Rule 60(a). As the Judgment was not appealed, the only issue before us is whether the clarifying order was consistent or inconsistent with the intent behind the original judgment. The district court’s clarification was consistent with the contemporaneous intent of its original judgment. The district court had previously expressed its intent to apply principles of federal maritime law, including joint and several liability. See McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202, 220 , 114 S.Ct. 1461 , 128 L.Ed.2d 148 (1994) (explaining that joint and several liability is a “well-established principle” in admiralty actions). Therefore, the order was not an abuse of discretion. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077-81 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that Rule 60(a) allows for “clarifications” that do “not change the operative, substantive terms of the original judgment”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T505,

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co. appeals the district court’s Rule 60(a) order clarifying a judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). We affirm.

It was appropriate for the district court to issue the order under Rule 60(a). As the Judgment was not appealed, the only issue before us is whether the clarifying order was consistent or inconsistent with the intent behind the original judgment. The district court’s clarification was consistent with the contemporaneous intent of its original judgment. The district court had previously expressed its intent to apply principles of federal maritime law, including joint and several liability. See McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202, 220 , 114 S.Ct. 1461 , 128 L.Ed.2d 148 (1994) (explaining that joint and several liability is a “well-established principle” in admiralty actions). Therefore, the order was not an abuse of discretion. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077-81 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that Rule 60(a) allows for “clarifications” that do “not change the operative, substantive terms of the original judgment”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.