Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-12100-GAO.
July 6, 2010
ORDER
An entry of default, which is all that has occurred on the piercing the corporate veil claim, is an interlocutory order.United States v. $23,000 in United States Currency, 356 F.3d 157, 163 (1st Cir. 2004); see KPS Assocs., Inc. v. Designs by FMC, Inc., 318 F.3d 1, 19 (1st Cir. 2003) (noting that a default judgment cannot be entered on a claim until damages are assessed). A court has the "inherent power . . . to correct, within a reasonable time, a manifest error in its own interlocutory order." Jusino v. Zayas, 875 F.2d 986, 990 n. 3 (1st Cir. 1989). George Kurtz and Mary Kay Reid, however, do not seek to identify any errors made by the Court but merely express their continued disagreement with the sanction imposed by the Court.
The defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (dkt. no. 178) is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.