UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OPTIONAL CAPITAL, INC., AKA No. 22-55832 Optional Ventures, Claimant-Appellant, D.C. Nos. 2:04-cv-02788- and PA-PLA 2:04-cv-03386- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PA-PLA 2:05-cv-03910- Plaintiff, PA-PLA v. ORDER DAS CORPORATION, Respondent-Appellee, and 475 MARTIN LANE, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA, Real Property Located at, et al. Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding 2 OPTIONAL CAPITAL, INC. V. DAS CORPORATION

Submitted April 21, 2023*

Filed April 28, 2023

Before: Daniel P. Collins and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges, and Gregory A. Presnell, ** District Judge.

SUMMARY ***

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)

The panel granted DAS Corporation’s motion to summarily affirm the district court’s decision, which recognized that the latest relief sought by Optional Capital, Inc., pursuant to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) motion to amend, was directly contrary to this court’s prior rulings in this case. In its prior decision, the panel rejected Optional’s contention that DAS should be held in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with the May 2013 final judgment that was entered in these forfeiture proceedings. After that decision became final, Optional filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) motion to amend the May 2013 judgment to provide that (1) the $12.6 million that DAS had received “is impressed with a constructive trust in favor of Optional” and * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** The Honorable Gregory A. Presnell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. OPTIONAL CAPITAL, INC. V. DAS CORPORATION 3

that (2) “DAS is directed to return that $12,602,824.09, with interest, to Optional’s counsel.” Optional argued that the May 2013 judgment’s failure to specifically award the $12.6 million to Optional was a “scrivener’s error” that should be corrected under Rule 60(a). The district court denied Optional’s Rule 60(a) motion. First, the panel denied Optional’s motion to strike DAS’s papers, which alleged that DAS was not a proper party in this matter. The panel held that this contention was frivolous. The panel held that DAS had standing to object to the proposed entry of a subsequent final judgment that in its view did not correctly reflect the court’s earlier rulings that finally disposed of the matter as to DAS. DAS therefore properly filed an opposition to Optional’s Rule 60(a) motion in the district court and is properly deemed to be an appellee in this court. The panel granted DAS’s motion for summary affirmance. As the district court correctly recognized, this court’s decision in the prior appeal does not permit the amendment of the judgment that Optional requested in its Rule 60(a) motion. Rule 60(a) is limited to the correction of “blunders” in the drafting of the judgment, and it does not provide an opportunity for the district court to change its mind. In its prior decision, the panel held that it was “quite clear that the district court at the 2013 trial did not have before it, and did not undertake to decide, the competing claims of DAS and Optional to the $12.6 million that DAS had received from the Credit Suisse Account in 2011.” The panel