to respond. But the rule renders these arguments inapplicable. Under Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.01, a court may, on “its own initiative” and without notice, correct a clerical error. Additionally, Advanced Bionics has not explained any reason that the omissions made in the temporary injunction of language that had been part of the TRO were anything other than clerical errors. Moreover, there is nothing in the record demonstrating an intention of the court to grant Medtronic a temporary injunction with relief that differed from the TRO. We conclude that the district court’s clarification of the order was an oversight “apparent on the face of the record,” and, as such, is an error that is correctable by the court nunc pro tunc under rule 60.01. See Rogers v. Moore, 603 N.W.2d 650, 656 (Minn.1999) (<HOLDING>). I. First-Filed Rule Advanced Bionics argues
holding counsel cannot be ineffective based on errors that the appellate court determined on direct appeal were not errors plain or otherwise holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination holding that noneonstitutional errors in civil suits are harmless only if it is highly probable that the errors did not affect the outcome of the case holding that this court was unable to reach alleged errors where pro se appellant did not provide an adequate record holding that even significant errors if clerical in nature may be corrected by the district court nunc pro tunc