ORDER AMENDING ORDER FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2015

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on the motion to amend by petitioner Joseph F. Frankl, Regional Director of Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board"). (ECF No. 29.) Petitioner seeks to amend this court's February 10, 2015 order. (Id.) Respondent Adams & Associates, Inc. ("Adams" or "respondent") opposes the motion. (ECF No. 31.) The court found the motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 230(g). As explained below, the court GRANTS the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 25, 2014, petitioner moved for an injunction under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 160(j), contending respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of the NLRA. (ECF No. 1.) After thorough briefing and oral argument, the court granted petitioner's motion on February 10, 2015. (ECF No. 27.) In granting petitioner's motion for injunctive relief, the court ordered respondent to offer Genesther Taylor reinstatement to her job position and to permit her access to the Sacramento Job Corps Center for the purpose of representing union members in union-related matters. (Id. at 15-16.)

Petitioner now moves to amend that order to include the following: "that pending the final disposition of the matters involved now pending before the Board, [r]espondent is ordered to cease and desist from . . ."

(ECF No. 29 at 2.)

Respondent opposes the motion, arguing there is "no reasonable justification for [petitioner's] unnecessary and punitive request." (ECF No. 31 at 1.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides: "The court may correct . . . a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a[n] . . . order . . . . The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice." This court "may properly invoke Rule 60(a) to make a[n] [order] reflect the actual intentions and necessary implications of the court's decision." Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 918 F.2d 1439, 1445 (9th Cir. 1990). In ruling on such a motion, district courts are afforded "wide latitude," and the rulings are reviewed under the "abuse of discretion" standard. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

As noted above, petitioner asks this court to amend its February 10, 2015 order to "include cease and desist provisions that would restrain [r]espondent from: 1) refusing to hire Genesther Taylor or other bargaining unit employees of predecessor employer Horizons because of their union support or affiliation; 2) refusing to permit Genesther Taylor or other Union representatives access to the Center for the purpose of collective bargaining; and 3) in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights." (ECF No. 29-1 at 3.) Petitioner reasons the "omission of these cease and desist provisions is clear error," because the Board's remedy for the violations at issue "includes both an affirmative provision that employees be reinstated to their former positions, as well as a cease and desist provision restraining the employer from refusing to hire employees of its predecessor." (Id. at 4.)

The court finds amending its February 10, 2015 order is warranted. In holding so, the court does not engage in any fact-finding regarding respondent's compliance with the court's February 10, 2015 order. Rather, the court makes a limited amendment to its prior order to reflect its original intention. The cease and desist provisions that petitioner now seeks to add to the court's order were included in both the original petition for injunction (ECF No. 1 at 8-9) and the proposed temporary injunction order (ECF No. 1-4 at 2). The court should have included those provisions in its order because they are designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the NLRA. See Frankl v. HTH Corp., 825 F.Supp.2d 1010, 1050 (D. Haw. 2011), aff'd sub nom. Frankl ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. HTH Corp., 693 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2012); New Breed Leasing Corp., 317 NLRB 1011, 1026-27 (1995). Therefore, the court AMENDS the directive portion of its February 10, 2015 order (ECF No. 27) to read as follows:

The court HEREBY ORDERS respondent, its officers, representatives, supervisors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting on its behalf or in participation with it to take the following steps pending the final disposition of the matter:

The court ADDITIONALLY ORDERS that no later than seven (7) days after the ALJ issues the final recommendation, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report with the court briefly setting forth the decision of the ALJ and the schedule for further proceedings before the Board.

The court FURTHER ORDERS respondent, its officers, representatives, supervisors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and all persons acting on its behalf or in participation with it, to cease and desist from the following acts and conduct, pending the final disposition of this matter now pending before the board:

The court's February 10, 2015 order shall remain in full effect in all other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.