Grunt Style LLC v. TWD, LLC: Treating Omitted Counter-claims as a Rule 60(a) Clerical Error – A Streamlined Remand Procedure Without a New Notice of Appeal

Introduction

In Grunt Style LLC v. TWD, LLC, the Seventh Circuit confronted a recurrent procedural snag: a district court enters a “final” judgment but fails to mention one side’s counter-claims. Such oversights spawn confusion over finality, deadlines, and the number of appeals that must be filed. Facing four competing solutions proffered by the parties and the district judge, the Court of Appeals settled on a simple answer: the omission is a clerical mistake correctable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a); the appellate court will remand for correction while retaining jurisdiction; and no additional notice of appeal or filing fee is necessary as long as the district court’s amendment is truly clerical.

This commentary unpacks the case background, the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning, its engagement with precedents, and the broader implications for litigants and courts navigating Rules 3, 4, 58 and 60 when judgments are imperfectly drafted.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Background Facts & Posture
• 2018 – TWD sues Grunt Style for trademark infringement.
• Grunt Style files counter-claims alleging TWD is the infringer.
• 2022 – Judge Kocoras grants summary judgment against all of TWD’s claims, leaving only Grunt Style’s counter-claims.
• 2024 – Judge Hunt conducts a bench trial; judgment entered for Grunt Style for $739,500.
• 2025 – Judgment amended to add pre- and post-judgment interest plus permanent injunction.
• Problem: the amended Rule 58 judgment never says what happened to TWD’s original claims.
• TWD appeals (No. 25-1305), then files an “amended” notice of appeal (No. 25-1341) trying to hedge against the possible deficiency.

2. Issues Confronted by the Seventh Circuit
a. Is the silence about TWD’s claims fatal to finality and appellate jurisdiction?
b. Which procedural tool—waiver, district court revision on its own, or remand—is correct?
c. Is the second notice of appeal necessary, and must an extra filing fee be paid?

3. Holdings
• The omission is a clerical error under Rule 60(a).
• The Court remands for limited purpose of inserting language disposing of TWD’s claims, retaining jurisdiction under Rule 12.1(b).
• No new notice of appeal is required; the original, timely notice suffices once the judgment is corrected nunc pro tunc.
• The second appeal (No. 25-1341) is dismissed as duplicative; no additional fee is owed under Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(iii).

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. TiEnergy, LLC, 894 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2018) – underscored why a separate Rule 58 document is needed to start appellate clocks and “keep jurisdictional lines clear.”
Chessie Logistics Co. v. Krinos Holdings, Inc., 867 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2017) – reiterated that a final decision under § 1291 requires disposition of all claims including counter-claims.
Sterling Nat’l Bank v. Block, 984 F.3d 1210 (7th Cir. 2021) – example where a judgment silent on counter-claims was problematic; foreshadows present ruling.
Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (1978) & FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269 (1991) – taught that absence of a proper Rule 58 judgment does not always bar appeal if parties waive the defect, but uncertainty should be avoided.
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) – the foundational “divestiture rule”: once a notice of appeal is filed, the district court loses authority over matters involved in the appeal absent a remand or indicative ruling.
Mosley v. Atchison, 689 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2012) – clarified that a true Rule 60(a) correction is nunc pro tunc and does not require a new appeal.

Collectively, these authorities shaped the Seventh Circuit’s view that (i) absolute clarity in the judgment is preferred but (ii) when only a clerical omission exists, a limited remand is the appropriate fix without jeopardizing jurisdiction.

Core Legal Reasoning

Clerical vs. Substantive Amendments
Unaddressed counter-claims were not substantively undecided; they had been dismissed earlier. Hence, the omission changed how the judgment read, not the rights determined. Rule 60(a) expressly lets courts correct such mistakes “at any time,” but post-appeal the district court needs appellate leave (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) last sentence; Fed. R. App. P. 12.1).
Retention of Jurisdiction
Because the underlying merits were final, the Court had appellate jurisdiction and could keep the case while permitting limited district-court action—a textbook Rule 12.1(b) remand.
Notice-of-Appeal Mechanics
a. A deficient judgment is still a “judgment” for purposes of Rule 4 timekeeping; parties must appeal promptly.
b. Rule 3(c)(4) (post-2021) means a notice designating the final judgment automatically sweeps in all merged interlocutory orders; listing them is optional.
c. Filing a second “amended” notice when nothing new needs appealing is redundant; Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(iii) bars a duplicative fee.

Likely Impact

District Courts – Must vigilantly ensure Rule 58 judgments expressly dispose of every claim, counter-claim, and party. Where an omission slips through, the path for correction is now clearer.
Appellate Practitioners – Encouraged to raise judgment-format issues quickly; but if the only flaw is clerical, one timely notice of appeal suffices—avoid “belt-and-suspenders” duplicate filings.
Clerks of Court – The opinion instructs that amended notices automatically generate new dockets, yet filing fees may be waived when appeals are redundant.
Substantive Law – Although the suit was about trademarks, the opinion’s lasting value lies in procedural doctrine; expect heavy citation in future Seventh Circuit orders dealing with Rule 58/60 glitches.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 58 “Separate Document” Requirement: A final judgment must be set out in its own short document so everyone knows when the clock to appeal starts.
“Final Decision” (28 U.S.C. § 1291): The appellate courts generally can review only decisions that leave nothing left for the trial court to do—for every claim, every party.
Clerical Error (Rule 60(a)): A slip in wording or omission that doesn’t alter the substance of what the court decided (e.g., forgetting to note that counter-claims were dismissed).
Nunc Pro Tunc: Latin for “now for then.” When a court corrects a clerical error, the correction dates back to the original judgment date, as if the error never occurred.
Indicative Ruling (Rule 62.1): When an appeal is pending, the district judge cannot act directly, but can say, “I would grant the requested relief if the appellate court lets me.”

Conclusion

Grunt Style LLC v. TWD, LLC adds an important procedural waypoint in Seventh Circuit jurisprudence. The Court crystallizes that:

Silence in a judgment about already-resolved counter-claims is only a clerical lapse, not a jurisdictional abyss.
The correct remedy is a limited remand under Rule 12.1 coupled with Rule 60(a) correction, without disturbing appellate jurisdiction.
One timely notice of appeal covers the waterfront; superfluous “amended” notices spawn needless dockets and fees.

This clarity promotes efficiency, reduces litigation costs, and safeguards timeliness by aligning the mechanics of Rules 3, 4, 58, and 60. Future litigants confronting imperfect judgments in the Seventh Circuit now have a well-marked procedural map: identify the error early, request a limited remand, and move forward on a single, streamlined appeal.