Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
Procedural orderFiled Feb. 25, 2026

Event Sales v. The TJX Companies

Full caption

Event Sales, Inc. v. The TJX Companies, Inc.; Federal Express Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; and FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a Delaware Corporation.

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:23-cv-03444
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Event Sales, Inc. v. The TJX Companies, Inc., Judge Menendez granted TJX's unopposed motion to correct a clerical error in the January 23, 2026 judgment, adding $130,000 in expert witness and attorney fees and $20,000 in taxable costs that the court had accidentally left out.

Who this affects

Event Sales, Inc. (the plaintiff/counter-defendant), which is now required to pay an additional $150,000 to TJX under the corrected judgment — $130,000 in expert witness and attorney fees and $20,000 in taxable costs — consistent with a stipulation the parties had previously agreed to.

What happened

This case, Event Sales, Inc. v. The TJX Companies, Inc., involves a dispute in which both sides previously agreed — through a formal written stipulation — that the final judgment would require Event Sales to pay TJX $130,000 in expert witness and attorney fees and $20,000 in taxable costs, on top of any prejudgment interest. When the court entered its final judgment on January 23, 2026, it inadvertently focused only on the prejudgment interest issue and left out those two agreed-upon amounts entirely.

TJX filed an unopposed motion on February 4, 2026, asking the court to fix this oversight under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), which allows a court to correct clerical mistakes or errors caused by oversight in a judgment. Event Sales did not challenge the motion. The court also addressed a procedural complication: Event Sales had filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals after TJX's motion was filed, which generally limits what a trial court can do. However, courts have consistently held that correcting a clerical error under Rule 60(a) is an exception to that limitation.

Judge Menendez granted TJX's motion and directed the Clerk of Court to enter an amended judgment adding $130,000 in expert witness and attorney fees and $20,000 in taxable costs in favor of TJX, consistent with the parties' prior stipulation.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case

Event Sales, Inc. v. The TJX Companies, Inc.; Federal Express Corporation; and FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 23-cv-3444 (KMM/ECW), United States District Court, District of Minnesota.

Judge

Katherine M. Menendez, United States District Judge.

Motion at Issue

TJX's unopposed Motion to Correct the Judgment (Dkt. 112), filed February 4, 2026, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).

Background

The parties had previously entered into a joint stipulation (Dkt. 95) agreeing that the final judgment would include, in addition to prejudgment interest, (1) Event Sales's payment of $130,000 in expert witness and attorney fees to TJX, and (2) Event Sales's payment of $20,000 in taxable costs to TJX. The court accepted this stipulation via an Amended Order (Dkt. 98). However, when the court entered its final judgment on January 23, 2026 (Dkt. 111), it focused solely on the issue of prejudgment interest and omitted the stipulated fee and cost amounts.

Legal Standard

Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission in a judgment at any time. The court also addressed a jurisdictional issue: after TJX filed its motion, Event Sales filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. As a general rule, a pending appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction. However, the court noted — citing Madura v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 655 F. App'x 717, 723 (11th Cir. 2016) and Local 1545, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Inland Steel Coal Co., 876 F.2d 1288, 1291 n.4 (7th Cir. 1989) — that district courts retain authority to correct clerical errors under Rule 60(a) even while an appeal is pending. The court characterized the omission of the $150,000 total (comprised of the $130,000 and $20,000 amounts) as a clerical error, not a substantive ruling, and thus found it retained jurisdiction to act.

Ruling

The court granted TJX's motion (Dkt. 112). The January 23, 2026 judgment (Dkt. 111) was amended to include an award of $130,000 in expert witness and attorney fees and $20,000 in taxable costs in favor of TJX. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter an amended judgment consistent with this order.

Unopposed

Event Sales did not oppose the motion or dispute the underlying stipulation.

Reviewer note from the AI+
The court's footnote refers to the omitted amounts collectively as '$150,000' (the sum of $130,000 and $20,000), which aligns with the figures stated in the order. The opinion does not detail the underlying merits of the dispute between Event Sales and TJX or the FedEx defendants; this order addresses only the clerical correction. The FedEx defendants play no role in this particular motion. Confidence is high given the straightforward, short nature of the order.
The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.